CM  THEHE  BE- A CHDRCII  WlfHOl'T  A BMP! 


9' 


-I  } 


CONTROTEESY 


BETWEEN 


REV.  DRS.  WAINWRIGHT  AND  POTTS, 


(THE  FORMER  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL,  THE  LATTER 
OF  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH,) 

( GROWING  OUT  OF  THE  INCIDENTAL  ASSERTION  OF  THE  FORMER  THAT 

^ THERE  CANNOT  BE  A CHURCH  WITHOUT  A BISHOP.’ 

IN- 

A SERIES  OF  LETTERS, 


ORIGINALLY  PUBLISHED  IN  THE  COMMERCIAL  ADVERTISER. 

LIE  OF  THE 

' i ' 


• r ' UP  V 

NEW^YORK: 

GREELEY  & M^ELRATH^  TRIBUNE  BUILDINGS. 


BOSTON  : Redding  & Co.  PHILADELPHIA  : Zeibbr  & Co. 
CINCINNATI : W.  H.  Mocrk  & Co. 


1844. 


‘tiM  A mm  . 


; ^ tri*  .vf/^  in'jdi"^.;--'  'f 


(. 


tAHT  ^ '-'^T  " 


,^U■.^:1^  n j,' 


■•  '■/-  • -^l;' ® 

>ir-‘ 

'-!o 

\ ' 


a ’ 

'•  V ' ■ 

■\^^- 
'■'^-  ■ '.'f-v"  ’ ■ 


Ratinv.'vrr  A r:-  V ^;l 


{’r  •l!-..'.-'Ai 


. ■>)< 


,'>’V  a .'C  • ' • ''  .'  J.'i-l','.  ’>  ■ :.  '■’*  . /<**T  *>' 


Ca 


262 
W/  3ci 


Ki 


Ci 


c/> 

-d 


1 N T R O D U C T 1^0  N . 


The  occasion  of  the  following  Correspondence  was  a remark  made  by  Hon.  Rufus  Choate  in  his  Ad- 
dress before  the  New-England  Society,  at  their  Anniversary  in  New-York,  in  the  month  of  December,  1843  . 
n refermg  to  the  Puritans  of. \8w-Eng!and  and  their  flight  from  foreign  oppression,  he  said  they  ‘‘found  an  asy- 
lum (here)  and  discovered  a Government  without  a King-,  and  a CJmrchwithout  a Bishop."  The  sentiment 
was  responded  to  with  loud  and  protracted  applause.  The  manner  irx  which  the  sentiment  was  received,  Dr. 
Wainwright,  an  eminent  Episcopalian  Clergyman,  thought  justified  him  in  alluding  to  it  publicly.  So 
at  the  Dinner  winch  succeeded  the  Address,  he  repeated  the  statement  of  Mr.  Choate,  and  added,  that  “if 
this  were  the  proper  arena,  and  were  tlrat  distrnguished  gentleman  (Mr.  C.)  to  throw  down  the  gauntlet  on 
this  question,  I should  not  for  an  instant  hesitate  to  take  it  up,  and  maintain  on  the  opposite  side  that 
there  can  be  no  Church  without  a Bishop.”  Dr,  Potts,  a distinguished  Presbvterian  Clergyman,  of  what 
IS  termed  the  Old  School,  takes  up  the  challenge,  and,  after  some  trouble  in  settling  the  preliminaries  the 
discussion  is  commenced.  ’ 


It  will  be  apparent  to  evmy  one  conversant  with  the  religious  controversies  of  the  world  in  every  age 
that  the  whole  question  at  issue  is  whether  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostolic  succession  is  a Bible  doctrine  o: 
not.  The  denomination  to  which  Dr.  Wainwright  belongs,  asserts  that  theie  has  ever  been  since  the  tinn 
of  our  Saviour  a rank  in  the  Church  corresponding  to  that  of  the  Apostles-that  those  who  compose  thb 
rank  derive  their  power  in  unbroken  succession  from  the  Apostles,  and  are  now  known  under  the  title  o 
Bishops.  These  alone  possess  the  authority  to  confer  subordinate  power  on  others  in  the  Church,  aw 
hence  all  ordinations  except  performed  by  Bishops  are  irregular,  and  cannot  be  recognised.  All  dissent 
ing  denominations,  to  one  of  which  Dr.  Potts  belongs,  recognise  but  one  real  rank  in  the  ministry— and  be 
lieve  that  the  power  of  the  ministry  itself  is  held  by  the  Church,  since,  under  some  circumstances,  it  car 
create  a ministry.  In  the  one  case  all  authority  and  power  being  transmitted  through  the  Apostles  to  i 
certain  class  of  men,  it  is  asserted  also  that  no  organization  can  be  a Church  without  their  sanction  Or 
the  other  hand  the  power  resting  in  a class  that  cpn  reproduce  itself,  or  in  case  of  emergency,  be  producer 
by  a body  of  Christians  who  have  organized  themselves  into  a Church,  it  is  claimed  that  the  various  de 
nominations  organized  as  churches,  me  so,  and  their  ministers  all  clothed  with  equal  authority.  Tba; 
much  may  be  said  on  both  sides  of  this  question  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  some  of  the  purest  and  ableei 
minds  that  have  ever  blessed  the  world  have  defended  both. 

With  these  few  remarks  as  to  the  real  point  at  issue,  and  aroi^nd  which  the  whole  weight  of  arguraeni 
should  gather,  we  give  the  Coirespondence. 


t "n  j Ki  1}  0 y-  ^ ' 


'’1  •'  vjor.  ,.-  ?!  ■■■^.■  4.,.*.  ..>^<  :./  .-.  .asq.'iiiUfetli&ny,)  ^jOiWj;  • ' ' .'  . f' 

'/►V*!  ’ ^ •■  ’ : 4>>K»'a' ,-iT'  ;,’.n-  i.<  . *. ,.  ip  ri;  !,.t,v;',i;x^>;!.-  - |■■;.■.-  ;^  Y,-<3s<fi  »- 

Vr’  ‘n  Mr  >>»  'r-»r4}  iiWt'W{j<jmiv‘?o-;r^-  • ! :„. , I •.  i.i'  ' ' > ' '•lilsiJ  ,.tJ<''3si  ft ' 

- ■•*!•' i ’r.'i'l  '-t-fo  ic!r^.C!r.  ‘^'.n  :■*  i ' 

•liA...',  j?iMlt.i(rvf  • l>i4w  irvT.  •i^SN'n  g\\'r  . •■’>;  !.r--^!  jTrijf  •'  •/ m >,-t?*  • . Irr 

>iP*'  ^r}.  .;  . ‘ ( V ■>;;  i;ntiil:!!)^  'i  f<n;'  ' v!  - c),  Ur,.)!Oil-  .VrtUf!<,  - •’■'{  ^ ¥/ 

S’*  J/t'tiJ  i»  ,*! .:i’^ 'ii- trr'-."  :UJi  ^■.;i..i^  >v  < M ,<■  y / ' ' ".  ••-■  fcr 

^ ^ ^4«:4aS.:.  ' *'  . ,;■  ‘)'v?giK‘' 

n»l#  .iilK*'a  aipo^ij’lio  ,.  .A,, A,  (•)  i.  r ‘ n ^ 

HI- ><■  I ,./...;  I:.’  iftilj 

4*1-'  x.i- ;/r<t;!-.v.-i.*  I ■■rjt  V .u*;!"- T-t  -i  - S’O'l);  ,5k»c  ' .,V>  »it.' .‘-/J  ..  ■>  ? w-- . tji/ *1 

/ .f^-  • f '■  IV 

,'•*".  ••  i^r  ’ t •■•  '■  -4  > -nj  ■ '■\\c..  + t/i'ii”'  vr  , ■ “ ••-')  ',t<  ; . . > l.;^  «| 

- =!-':’i-.-  t- --  ‘i  ^ AUi.’SHiL ;'■•■!’? '•':  i.-^’ •;  :n  «(>'«%  ' ■ . ■ a^fj  ipKf 

,.  .!■•*.  ■<-  nyur.'-'^  • • a;  .1^441  ' a r ■ ;io’  • ’-'  T'.'' 

«i‘.’ • iA^Vt  ..•r*^-;.*  , x 4 S,.,,|i^  9.;j  UiXtUU^yi  J...  . ..i  ■ ■ ,Vr.  i'- : ..M  !\'  J/;  . ' >*  ;t'j1.-.> 

'yVtriJrt  •.-  •»•_.  t.i9;r  ..•»{;  '.i-  vf. -tw' .»^E>fSr  drtU  ■■'  : • J.  .,i; 

SiVJ  n.}  <<■  C<i->4  U r \i  r ^ i:  'Ur  ' i;  ‘tJ.o’  •’  v '’'TOil.i  ■ ly  »{  • -.wSi 

'«(  Vr.iin*"  ■ i-AS  ,1- i,;;f'A'j  7^?  S .,'ii A'S "K*  •>  ;> H ■ . 'j" 

OwirA-V' ?-<i7dAi  ji  1 ‘n-.S.Hi  !iM»i  fV  ' s -s>f  *f  '''  •>  »*  '.its.ff*'  j ■^. 

•;  ■■  -..v'A-sf  fO:  rri:-  \-;i  •T(t/4  !J  .7/  ,;,"j.^  y V 

si  V:  .;•>(;•■■/  ’'.  ■■  * tj.i’ ein.*:.  ■■'•:.■••!’•  f'?  •■’'it..- . , ..  ..j-ir! 

•<iJ  .4.,*  iiy-.AwA'j,.  ■ .••;'  , , .jtHlti.ri  '•  M S . ^ ’' .•  ' 

4'’  cl  nr  - v;,;  • f i;  ■ , ■ .riq  ,.  >']  I rr:  ■/';} 

•rtl  *»i«>nov f -.- iw  :.V>vv.4(*  aA‘'fri  .,....;  '.•..■..'(•••i.-^  ;,,  . . x.-ijiiiv’  ' • ^ ; 

!*»4r  ,'■  ;_.  *;*sr^  l-.-n  .-UA  l.s,!i  u.ii-.i*!.,!'  *!:.•.;!  i'lw  4 , > Mniti-.uiSE— 

:,Afnu<}  Ottt  ' .'»i-.;rt  . ,4^>  a , ijf  jnat*.  ' ■ ■ * < - ‘ Vi  a-'iia  r!j’<Mi  i I-,  e 4 jmt  ■ -xi 

. JfV  H h»*).-‘''*  .[)  ■>  .«'■?:  -f»/  f»f*  ■ A.ii' 

'■^;i  V-  •.'  ,v" / ■'itf;-!'  »•  '>«i?  s' ‘jcut  . > K?:ur  ''-ia  a : ; f A '’xS/’m' 

‘ • ’ * . _ . . .... 


- "H2V>,y. 


',nV'  s 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


LETTER  1. 

REV.  DR.  POTTS  TO  REV.  DP..  WAIN  WRIGHT  : 

NE^v'YoRK,  December  27. 1843. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir  — Will  you  permit  me  to 
inquire  whether  the  remarks  accribed  to  you, 
upon  the  occasion  of  responding^  to  a sentiment 
at  the  late  dinner  of  the  New-England  Society, 
are  correctly  reported  ? I am  persuaded  that 
the  reporter  must  have  done  you  great  injustice 
in  respect  to  language,  style, ^ grammar,  ^c.,  for 
the  report  which  I have  seen  is  remarkably  incor. 
rect  in  these  particulars,  and  strangely  different 
from  the  accuracy  with  which  other  gentlemen 
are  represented  as  speaking  upon  the  same  occa- 
sion.  I refer  to  this  fact,  because  it  has  led  me 
to  suppose  it  possible  that  the  evident  incorrect, 
ness  of  the  report  of  your  remarks,  in  the  partic. 
uiars  just  named,  may  extend  even  to  the  seniL 
meats — and  that  you  did  not  so  broadly  affirm  the 
exclusive  claims  to  prelatical  Episcopacy,  nor 
invite  a challenge  from  the  orator  of  tlic  day  to 
put  you  to  the  proof  of  those  claims. 

That  there  may  be  no  mistake,  I will  quote  the 
language  ascribed  to  you,  and  to  which  I beg  to 
refer  you  for  explanation.  It  is  contained  in  the 
“ Morning  Express”  of  the  23d  inst.  “ He  (the 
orator  of  the  day,  Mr.  Choate,)  told  you  of  some 
who  in  the  days  of  William  and  Mary  (an  evi- 
dent mistake  of  the  reporter)  found  an  asylum 
and  discovered  a government  without  a King, 
and  a Church  without  a.  Bishop.  (Cheers.) — 
Now,  sir,  notwithstanding  this  strong  hurst  of 
approbation  to  the  sentiment,  were  this  a proper 
arena,  should  even  the  orator  of  the  day  throw 
down  his  gauntlet,  I would  take  it  up  and  say 
THERE  CANNOT  BE  A ClIURCH  WITHOUT  A BlSHOP.” 

I repeat  that  I am  quite  unwilling  to  suppose 
that  you  have  been  correctly  reported  : because, 
although  there  are  not  wanting  instances  of  the 
remorseless  and  arrogant  exclusiveness  implied  in 
the  above  sentence,  I cannot  bring  myself  to  be- 
lieve that  you  would  make  so  broad  and  unquali- 
tied  a statement  at  any  time,  and  least  of  all  upon 
such  an  occasion.  The  statement,  as  it  stands, 
affirms,  not  merely  the  relative  superiority  of 
diocesan  Episcopacy,  not  merely  that  prelacy  is 
essential  to  the  well-being  of  a Church,  but  it 
goes  the  whole  length  of  affirming  that  it  is  essen- 


tial to  its  very  being.  There  cannot  he  a Church 
without  a Bishop.  This  is  something  more  than 
a question  of  relative  advantages ; it  beeomes  a 
question  of  vitality,  of  existence  itself.  It  is  not 
saying,  our's  is  a better  ehurch  than  yours,  and 
we  are  better  Christians  than  you ; but  our’s  is 
the  only  church,  and  (by  implication  and  fair 
inference)  we  are  the  only  Christians ; accord- 
ingly the  above  passage  can  be  no  otherwise  un- 
derstood, but  as  declaring  a readiness  to  prove 
that  all  “ the  Christian  churches,  in  whose  polity 
the  element  of  prelacy  is  not  found,  are  usurpers 
of  a sacred  name,  that  their  ministry  and  sacra- 
ments are  impious  burlesques,  and  (inferentially) 
that  their  people  must  find  mercy  in  some  indi- 
rect way  and  creep  into  Heaven  by  some  back 
door. 

I repeat,  again,  that  I am  unwilling  to  believe 
that  Dr.  Wainwright  would  state  so  offensive  a 
position  at  any  time,  and  least  of  all  on  such  an 
occasion.  We  all  know  the  complexion  of  a 
New-England  society,  and  the  object  of  their 
festivities  on  the  22d  of  December.  They  were 
especially  met  to  celebrate  the  civic  and  religious 
excellences  of  a band  of  exiles,  whom  the  perse- 
cuting prelacy  of  the  time  had  driven  from  their 
homes ; who  actually  laid  the  foundations  of  a 
“ State  without  a King  and  nobles,  and  of  a 
Church  without  a Bishop.”  That  Church  stands 
yet,  and  stands  without  a Bishop.  To  affirm, 
therefore,  upon  such  an  occasion,  that  there  can- 
not be  a Church  without  a Bishop,  was  to  pro- 
nounce a sentence  of  excommunication  against 
the  great  mass  of  those  who  were  there  assem- 
bled, and  to  affront  their  best  sensibilities  by  de- 
filing the  graves  of  their  fathers.  I confess  that 
the  more  I look  at  the  language  of  the  above  ex- 
tract, simply  in  the  light  of  taste  and  courtesy, 
the  less  I am  willing  to  believe  it  to  be  a correct 
report  of  your  remarks. 

But,  should  I unhappily  be  mistaken  as  to  this, 
should  this  passage  be  a statement  of  your  real 
views — views  which  I had  supposed  were  at  least 
never  expressed  without  a good  many  saving 
clauses  to  make  them  tolerable  to  even  the  most 
credulous  believers  in  high  church  rights — then, 
and  only  in  that  case,  I am  induced  to  ask 
whether  you  are  ready  to  vindicate  the  truth  of 
this  statement.  You  speak  of  throwing  down  a 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


gauntlet,  and  declare  your  readiness  to  say,  and 
of  course  to  prove,  that  there  cannot  he  a Church 
without  a Bishop.  I am  aware  that  the  form  in 
which  the  words  arc  placed  is  not  piecisely  that 
of  a challenge,  but  is  it  not  a defiance  ? If  it 
does  not  gice  a challenge,  does  it  not  invite  one  ? 
There  is  no  great  difference  between  the  two 
things,  especially  when  we  consider  the  circum- 
stances.  You  could  scarcely  ex}>ect  (I  sptak 
now,  you  will  observe,  upon  the  supposition  that 
your  language  has  been  correctly  reported)  that 
the  orator  of  the  day  would  either  throw  down 
his  gage  of  battle  or  take  up  yours,  for  it  is  alto- 
gether unlikely  that  his  peculiar  engagements 
would  admit  of  this,  however  competent  he  is  to 
justify  this,  or  any  other  statement  in  his  noble 
and  beautiful  oration.  To  offer  or  invite  a chal- 
lenge to  controversy,  under  circumstances  which 
will  render  its  acceptance  impossible,  would  be 
unworthy  of  an  honest  champion.  Hence,  this 
defiance  must  be  understood  to  extend  to  any 
respectable  adversary  who  accords  with  Mr. 
Uhoate’s  statement. 

Now,  although  I am  not  a descendant  of  the 
Pilgrim  fathers,  and  although  I have  no  doubt 
that  in  all  that  relates  to  their  peculiar  claims 
upon  the  veneration  and  gratitude  of  future  ages, 
there  are  many  and  fitting  champions  to  be  found 
among  the  sons  of  such  sires  ; yet  inasmuch  as 
the  language  which  is  ascribed  to  you  does  not 
only  apault  them,  but  ail  others  who  are  one  with 
them  in  their  rejection  of  prelacy  ; and  further- 
more, considering  that  if  a challenge  so  public 
and  offensive  as  this  were  allowed  to  pass  suh  si. 
ientio,  it  might  hereafter  be  construed  as  an  indi- 
cation of  conscious  weakness,  and  not  of  con- 
tempt, I have  overcome  ray  unaffected  reluctance 
to  appear  in  the  character  of  a controversialist, 
and  now  beg  leave  to  say,  that  as  an  humble  ad- 
vocate of  the  ecclesiastical  rights  of  the  larger  part 
of  Protestant  Christendom,  I am  ready  to  debate 
with  you,  in  any  form  you  wish,  the  position 
which  you  are  represented  as  affirming,  viz: 
'^that  there  cannot  he  a Church  without  a 
Bishop.^'  Of  course  a prelatical  not  a parochial 
Bishop  is  here  meant.  Without  entering  now 
into  the  merits  of  the  question,  I will  hold  myself 
ready  (should  you  admit  that  the  reporter  of  your 
speech  has  not  done  you  injustice  at  least  in  this 
particular)  to  prove  .that  this  proposition  is  preg- 
nant with  innumerable  evil  consequences,  theo- 
logical, social  and  civil ; and  that  it  is  unscriptu- 
ral^  uncharitable^  schismatical  and  anti-repuhli- 
can  in  its  character. 

I have  been  induced  to  address  you  in  this  pub- 
lie  manner,  because  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
the  subject  must  sooner  or  later  come  before  the 
public.  The  language  ascribed  to  you  (whether 
justly  or  not  remains  yet  to  be  seen,)  was  not  used 
in  a^  private  circle,  was  not  whispered  in  confi- 
dential conversation ; it  was  not  uttered  from  one 
of  the  pulpits  of  your  own  denomination,  nor  was 
it  found  on  the  pages  of  a sectarian  print  like  the 
self-styled  “Churchman.”  Had  it  been,  I should 
not  have  thought  it  worth  while  to  notice  it. — 
But  having  been  used  upon  a festive  occasion, 
iHjfore  a promiscuous  company,  and  in  the  most 
public  manner,  it  is  obviously  no  longer  a matter 
for  private  communication.  This  will  be  my 


apology  for  thus  publicly  inviting  your  attention 
to  it. 

Hoping  that  it  will  be  found  that  you  have  beeij 
incorrectly  reported,  believe  me.  Rev.  and  dear  sir, 

Your  obedia  u .servant, 

GEORGE  POTTS. 


LETTER  II. 

RBV.  DR.  WAINWRIGHT  TO  REV.  DR.  POTTS. 

New-York,  December  30ch,  1843. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir  ; — Your  letter,  addressed  to 
me  through  the  columns  of  the  Commercial  of 
last  evening,  was  brought  to  my  notice  at  so  late 
an  hour  this  morning,  that  there  is  not  time  to 
prepare  and  get  to  press  such  a reply  as  on  every 
account  it  ought  to  receive  from  me.  I cannot 
for  a moment,  however,  delay  acknowledging  its 
perusal,  and  expressing  my  thanks  for  the  cour- 
teous  terms  in  which  it  is  drawn  up,  at  the  same 
time  stating  my  instant  readiness  to  redeem  any 
pledge  I may  have  given  in  the  few  words  spoken 
by  me  at  the  Nevv-Engiand  dinner.  As  you  sup- 
pose, my  speech,  (if  a few  remarks  entirely  ex- 
temporaneous can  deserve  such  a name,)  was 
most  defectively  reported,  as  I think,  in  the  Ex- 
press.  I cannot  distinctly  recall  every  word  I 
said,  but  as  far  as  my  memory  serves  me,  the  re- 
port contained  in  the  Courier  & Enquirer  of  last 
Monday,  which,  I am  informed,  is  to  appear  in 
the  American  of  this  evening,  is  the  most  accu- 
rate I have  seen.  But  as  to  the  important  point 
— and  the  one  which  alone  called  forth  your  let- 
ter— the  sentiment  I uttered  is  accurately  report- 
ed, and  I am  ready,  here  and  on  every  suitable 
occasion,  to  avow  it  and  to  maintain  it ; and  if 
it  is  my  lot  to  be  called  into  the  field,  I cannot  but 
congratulate  myself  that  my  challenger  is  one  for 
whose  private  and  intellectual  worth  I entertain 
so  high  a respect,  and  in  discussing  any  question 
with  whom  I shall  not  fear  the  disruption  of  so- 
cial intercourse,  and  much  less  the  utterance  of 
any  expressions  which  may  cause  regret  to  our 
mutual  friends  of  every  shade  of  religious  senti- 
ment. But  I must  defer  any  farther  observations 
until  next  week. 

With  much  respect,  your  obedient  serv't, 

JONA.  M.  WAINWRIGHT. 


LETFER  III. 


REV.  DR.  WAINWRIGHT  TO  REV.  DR.  POTTS. 

Rev,  and  Dear  Sir : — In  the  few  lines  to  which 
I was  restricted  on  Saturday,  I had  only  the  op- 
portunity of  acknowledging  the  perusal  of  your 
letter,  and  expressing  my  readiness  to  meet  you 
in  the  discussion  which  you  invite.  To  some 
preliminary  observations  upon  the  occasion  and 
character  of  your  letter,  which  I should  then  have 
offered  had  there  been  time,  I now  ask  your 
attention. 

I cannot  but  deem  it  a cause  of  regret  that,  be- 
fore taking  so  decided  a step  as  that  of  addressing 
a letter  to  me  in  the  columns  of  a newspaper,  and 
thus  leaving  me  no  alternative  but  to  reply  to  it 
through  the  same  channel,  you  had  not  been  at 
some  pains  to  ascertain  both  the  accuracy  of  the 
report  of  my  speech  at  the  New-England  dinner 
which  you  quote,  and  the  circumstances  under 
which  it  was  delivered.  Had  you  pursued  this 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


7 


course  I think  you  would  very  probably  have  come 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  occasion  did  not  warrant 
the  public  attack  you  have  made  upon  me.  In- 
deed, I doubt  whether  any  one,  maintaining  opi- 
nions different  from  those  which  I hold  upon  the 
subject  of  the  organization  of  the  Christian 
Church,  and  who  had  been  present  both  at  the 
oration  and  the  dinner,  could  have  felt  warranted 
in  interpreting  my  language  as  partaking  at  all  of 
the  character  of  “ defiance,”  to  use  your  own  ex- 
pression ; unless  indeed  his  feelings  had  previously 
been  in  such  a state  of  excitement  as  to  produce 
a rapid  tliirst  for  controversy.  You  were  not 
present,  and  therefore  under  this  cover  may  es- 
cape from  the  consequences  of  such  an  impu- 
tation. 

To  my  knowledge  there  were  two  clergymen 
present  at  the  dinner,  and,  as  I suppose,  at  the 
oration,  who  are  as  strongly  opposed  to  prelacy 
in  all  its  shapes  as  you  can  possibly  be,  and  who 
are  as  able  and  I doubt  not  as  ready  as  yourself 
to  take  up  the  gauntlet  had  it  been  thrown  down 
upon  this  question,  but  who  did  not  consider  my 
remarks  as  partaking  of  the  nature  of  a challenge 
or  defiance.  This  consideration,  however,  is  not 
of  much  importance  now,  because  since  the  issue 
has  been  joined,  I take  it  for  granted  that  neither 
of  us  feels  inclined  to  shrink  from  the  encounter. 
I only  allude  to  it  to  shield  myself  from  the  impu- 
tion  of  having  justly  provoked  a religious  contro. 
versy,  to  which  my  tastes  and  habits  of  life  arc 
entirely  opposed ; and  which,  in  common,  as  I 
believe,  with  the  great  body  of  the  community  in 
which  we  live,  I deprecate  except  under  a very 
stringent  necessity. 

I am  the  more  surprised  at  the  course  you  have 
pursued,  from  your  assertion  that  “you  are  quite 
unwilling  to  suppose  that  I have  been  correctly 
reported.”  Three  different  times  in  the  course  of 
your  letter  you  make  this  declaration.  Now, 
notwithstanding  this  emphatic  reiteration,  I fancy 
there  must  have  been  a sort  of  conviction  in  your 
mind,  of  which,  probably,  you  were  strangely  un- 
conscious at  the  time,  that  what  I said  had  been 
correctly  stated.  Otherwise,  I think  you  would 
not  have  been  so  ready  to  place  yourself  in  a po- 
sition, so  undesirable  for  the  members  «f  our  pro- 
fession, as  that  of  combatants  in  a daily  newspa- 
per,  and  compel  me  to  follow  you  there.  Had  you 
made  suitable  inquiries,  such  as  I should  suppose 
would  have  been  naturally  suggested  to  you  by  your 
professed  “ unwillingness  to  believe  that  Dr.  Wain- 
wright  would  state  so  offensive  a position  at  any 
time,  and  least  of  all  on  such  an  occasion,”  and 
one  which  “ affronted  the  best  sensibilities  of  those 
them  assembled  by  defiling  the  graves  of  their  fa- 
thers,”  and  one  which  was  objectionable  “ in  the 
light  of  taste  and  courtesy” — had  you  made  such 
inquiries,  prompted  by  your  implied  previous  good 
opinion  of  ni)'  social  taste  and  courtesy  and 
Christian  charity,  before  visiting  upon  me  a con- 
tingent public  denunciation,  you  would  have 
learned  that  while  I affirmed  a principle  which  it 
is  notorious  that  the  great  body  of  tlie  Catholic 
Church  has  ever  maintained,  it  was  done  in  an 
offensive  manner,  or  an  exclusive  spirit,  or  with- 
out some  provocation. 

You  ask  if  the  form  in  which  I placed  the 
words — “ There  cannot  he  a Church  vnthout 
a Bishop, ''  is  not  a defiance.  If  it  does  not  give 


a challenge,  does  it  not  invite  one  ?”  I reply  dis- 
tinctly, that  what  I said,  taken  in  the  connection 
in  which  I said  it,  was  not  a challenge,  or  a defi- 
ance ; nor  was  it  intended  to  invite  either,  from 
any  quarter  whatever.  To  assume  such  an  atti- 
tude,  on  such  an  occasion,  I should  with  you 
regard  as  an  indication  of  exceedingly  bad  “ taste,” 
and  as  evincing  a want  not  only  of  “ courtesy,” 
but  of  Christian  charity. 

What  then,  you  will  now  perhaps  be  inclined 
to  ask,  were  the  circumstances  which  prompted 
the  declaration  I made,  and  authorized,  in  ray 
judgment,  its  utterance  at  such  a time  and  place? 
I will  tell  you : I was  expressly  invited  to  hear 
Mr.  Choate’s  oration ; and  upon  going  to  the 
Tabernacle  for  this  purpose,  and  placing  myself 
among  the  general  mass  of  the  audience,  Was 
drawn  by  the  managers  of  the  New-England  So- 
ciety from  the  unobtrusive  position  I had  select- 
ed, and  urged  to  take  a more  prominent  situation 
by  the  side  of  the  orator  of  the  day.  Whether  or 
not  it  was  prudent  in  me,  holding  the  peculiar 
views  of  a churchman,  to  attend  the  celebration 
at  all,  is  a question  aside  from  the  present  matter, 
and  one  in  which  you  can  have  no  interest ; but 
I may  say,  in  passing,  that  it  is  a question,  in  re- 
gard  to  any  future  decision  of  which  I have  cer- 
tainly obtained  some  new  views  from  experience. 
Let  this  pass  then. 

I was  present  from  the  interest  I felt  on  the  oc- 
casion, as  the  son  of  a New-England  mother, 
descended  from  a long  line  of  ancestors  reaching 
up  to  the  early  settlement  of  the  country — as 
having  passed  my  early  years,  from  the  age  of 
ten  to  that  of  nearly  thirty,  in  New-England — as 
having  received  my  education  in  a New-England 
school  and  college — as  having  been  connected, 
at  two  different  periods,  with  two  New-England 
parishes,  containing  the  best  and  most  affection- 
ate people  a pastor  was  ever  blessed  with — as 
having  now  many  of  my  dearest  friends  resident 
in  New-England,  and  closely  identified  with  her 
literary,  civil  and  religious  institutions — and  as 
regarding  New-England  with  deep  respect  and 
afTection  for  the  intelligence  and  virtues  of  its 
people.  In  this  spirit,  and  under  the  influence 
of  associations  so  hallowed,  1 attended  the  celebra- 
tion, as  I have  done  in  repeated  instances  before. 

To  the  oration  I listened,  in  common  I believe 
with  all  who  were  present,  with  great  admiration 
of  the  brilliant  powers  of  the  speaker.  In  the 
course  of  his  remarks  it  fell  in  his  way  to  declare 
that  the  Puritans  in  the  reign  of  Mary,  driven 
from  their  homes,  sought  an  asylum  in  Geneva, 
where,  said  the  orator,  “ they  found  a State  with- 
out a King,  and  a Church  without  a Bishop.” — 
Now,  entertaining  the  opinions  of  a congrega- 
tionalist,  it  was  natural  enough  for  the  orator  to 
express  this  sentiment.  Its  epigrammatic  form 
gave  it  peculiar  effect,  but  in  ordinary  times  it 
would  have  been  received,  probably,  with  nothing 
more  than  the  applause  which  a striking  passage 
usually  elicits.  On  the  present  occasion,  how- 
ever, it  called  down  such  long-conlinued  and  tu- 
multuous cheering  as  I doubt  not  surprised  Mr. 
Choate  as  much  as  it  did  myself. 

Had  the  sentiment  produced  only  the  applause 
which  follows  the  happy  expressions  of  every 
popular  speaker, — had  it  been  cheered^  even  in 
the  same  degree  with  other  emphatic  poHions  of 


8 


A Church  tcithout  a Bishop. 


the  oration,  many  of  which  for  force,  originality 
and  beauty  of  illustration  were  much  more  worthy 
of  admiration— I should  have  thought  nothing  of 
the  occurrence  and  taken  no  notice  of  it.  But 
the  cheering  was  obviously,  to  my  apprehension, 
not  that  of  approbation  of  the  orator,  but  of  defi. 
ance  of  such  as  did  not  sympathise  with  the  sen- 
timent. How  far  all  this  was  in  good  taste,  or 
indicative  of  good  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  ma- 
jority  of  the  audience,  who  must  have  known 
that  many  Churchmen  belonged  to  the  society, 
and  were  then  present,  and  certainly  that  one 
was  placed  in  a very  conspicuous  position  as  the 
guest  of  the  society,  I leave  for  others  to  say. 

But  it  seemed  to  me  to  speak  this  language  : — 
Now,  you  advocates  of  prelacy,  we  have  you  ; 
we  ate  in  the  majority ; we  will  make  you  feel 
how  we  detest  your  opinions,  and  if  we  cannot 
drive  you  from  them,  we  will  show  you  how  un- 
popular  they  are,  and  at  least,  if  w^e  cart,  make 
you  ashamed  of  them.”  This  I know  was  the 
inference  drawn, not  only  by  myself,  but  by  many 
others  who  were  present.  Now  what  was  to  be 
done  ? To  rise  and  leave  the  room  would,  in  my 
view,  have  been  a slight  put  upon  the  orator 
■which  he  had  not  merited,  for  I ai?i  convinced 
that  he  did  not  intend  to  insult  any  class  of  per- 
sons, or  to  throw  contempt  upon  their  opinions. 
To  abstain  from  attending  the  dinner  to  which  I 
had  been  invited,  and  the  invitation  to  which  I 
had  accepted,  would  have  been  a course  open  to 
a similar  objection,  and  would,  moreover,  have 
indicated  a morbid  sensitiveness  to  popular  dis- 
approbation. 

When,  however,  at  the  dinner,  I was  called 
■upon  to  reply  to  the  toast,  “ The  Clergy  of  New- 
England,”  &c.,  as  the  greater  portion  of  those 
seated  at  the  table  had  made  part  of  the  audience 
at  the  Tabernacle,  I thought  I had  a right  to 
avail  myself  of  the  occasion  to  show  that  I was 
not  to  be  daunted  by  the  fear  of  popular  odium, 
or  to  be  driven  by  the  expression  of  it  from  the 
<^en  avowal  of  my  sentiments  upon  any  ques 
tion  whatever.  This  alone  was  my  motive  for 
uniting  with  what  I intended,  poor  as  it  may 
have  been,  as  a compliment  to  the  orator  of  the 
pay,  ray  dissent  from  that  expression  in  his  ora- 
tion which  had  elicited  the  longest  and  most  bois- 
terous applause.  The  manner  in  which  I at- 
tempted to  protect  m^^self,  in  a position  which  I 
acknowledged  was  sufficiently  awkward,  may 
have  been  unfortunate,  and  the  attempHtself  ill. 
timed. 

I care  not  to  rebut  such  a charge  as  this ; but 
I will  assert  again  that  self-defence  was  my  only 
motive.  Many,  I know,  who  differ  widely  from 
me  on  religious  questions,  do  not  regard  the  course 
I pursued  as  unbecoming  or  uncalled  for,  or  as 
involving,  as  you  suppose  in  your  letter,  any  de- 
signed insult  to  the  Pilgrims  or  their  doctrines. — 
That  you  have  arrived  at  a different  conclusion  I 
attribute  to  the  fact  of  your  partial  knowledge  of 
the  circumstances  of  the  case.  Had  you  been 
present  you  would  have  felt,  I doubt  not,  as  others 
of  our  profession  did  who  are  as  cordially  opposed 
to  the  “ regimen  of  Bishops”  as  yourself. 

Having  thus  shown,  as  I think  conclusive, 
that  what  I said  was  strictly  defensive,  and  can- 
not  justly,  subject  me  to  the  charge  of  manifesting 
the  bad  taste,  to  say  nothing  more,  or  bringing  a 


controverted  religious  question  gratuitously  be- 
fore a promiscuous  assemblage  of  persons,  I now 
come  1o  the  real,  and  henceforth,  as  respects 
ourselves,  the  only  important  question  in  hand. 

You  have  seen  fit — no  matter  whether  incon- 
siderately. from  want  of  full  information  in  the 
premises,  or  deliberately— to  give  me,  what  I 
offered  to  no  one  at  the  New-England  dinner,  “ a 
challenge  and  defiance.”  I quote  your  words — 

I will  hold  myself  (should  you  admit  that  the 
reporter  of  your  speech  has  not  done  you  injus- 
tice, at  least  in  this  particular,)  to  prove  that  this 
proposition,  (viz:  ‘ that  there  cannot  be  a Church 
without  a Bishop’)  is  pregnant  with  innumerable 
evil  consequences,  theological,  social  and  civil ; 
and  that  it  is  unscripturaly  uncharitable,  schis. 
matical  and  anti-repuhlican  in  its  character.” 

I deny  your  assertion,  in  all  its  length  and 
breadth,  and  hold  myself  ready  to  maintain  my 
denial  the  moment  you  will  enable  me  to  do  so 
by  advancing  the  arguments  on  which  you  found 
this  assertion.  You  leave  to  me  the  choice  of 
the  manner  in  which  the  debate  shall  be  con- 
ducted. 

I cannot  for  a moment  suppose  that  you  wish 
it  to  take  the  form  of  an  oral  disputation  before  a 
promiscuous  multitude.  Such  an  arrangement, 
I feel  confident,  you  would  regard  as  inex- 
pedient on  very  many  accounts.  Shall  the  de- 
bate then  be  conducted  through  the" medium  of 
the  daily  press  ? Were  this  desirable  I certainly 
should  not  have  the  slightest  objection  to  the 
highly  respectable  journal  which  you  have  your- 
self selected.  But  the  space  we  shall  probably 
have  to  occupy  would  be  greater,  I apprehend, 
than  any  editor  of  a secular  paper  would  feel  au- 
thorized, injustice  to  the  majority  of  his  readers, 
to  give  up  to  a religious  controversy.  Besides,  T 
confess  that  I should  prefer  much  not  to  have 
the  grave  questions  we  must  discuss  mingled  up 
with  the  politics  of  the  day  and  local  topics.  And 
again  I should  wish,  while  giving  all  needed  pub- 
licity to  the  controversy,  and  enabling  those  wko 
feel  an  interest  in  it  to  observe  its  progress,  to 
withdraw  as  far  as  practicable  from  a secular  are. 
na,  in  which  I am  sure  it  will  give  pain  rather 
than  pleasure  to  our  common  friends  to  see  us 
contend. 

I would  propose,  then,  that  we  select,  each  one 
of  us,  a religious  paper,  the  editors  of  which  will 
agree  that  all  the  communications,  as  they  ap- 
pear in  the  one,  shall  immediately  after  appear  in 
the  other,  without  the  slightest  alteration  or  cur- 
tailment ; and,  moreover,  that  the  editors  respect- 
fully shall  abstain  from  any  comments  on  the 
controversy  during  its  progress.  On  my  part  I 
select  the  Churchman,  provided  I can  procure 
the  assent  of  the  editor,  whom  I have  not  yet 
seen.  But  I think  I can  count  upon  his  acqui- 
escence. Should  he  decl  ne  the  conditions,  how- 
ever,  I will  make  some  other  selection. 

I.n  conclusion  I must  frankly  avow  that  I do 
not  believe  we  can  either  of  us  throw  any  light 
upon  question.^  which  have  been  so  often  the  sub- 
ject of  dispute,  and  which  for  many  years  in  con. 
tinuous  succession  have  employed  the  best  abili- 
ties, and  excited  the  fervid  zeal  of  the  most  learned 
and  pious  divines  of  all  persuasions.  Still,  if 
nothing  new  shall  be  elicited  in  this  dispute — ann 
for  myself  I greatly  doubt  the  learning  or  inge* 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


9 


nuity  of  either  of  us  to  bring  forth  a single  new 
argument — there  is  sometimes  an  advantage  in 
having  old  questions  stated  in  new  forms  and  in 
new  connexions,  and  with  reference  to  the  pre- 
vailing sentiments,  opinions,  wants  and  errors  of 
the  age. 

Very  respectfully,  Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

I am  your  fritud  and  servant, 
January  2d,  1814.  JONA.  M.  WAINWRIGHT. 


LETTER  IV. 

REV.  DR.  POTTS  TO  REV.  DR.  WAINWRIGHT. 


Rev.  and  Dear  Sir — I had  prepared  an  answer 
to  some  of  the  points  in  your  last  communication, 
and  I was  about  to  send  it  to  this  day’s  paper,  when 
it  struck  me  that  there  should  be  a previous 
settlement  of  the  question  as  to  the  form  which 
this  discussion  should  take,  or  rather  the  channel 
through  which  it  should  be  made  known  to  the 
public.  I will,  therefore,  withhold  my  commu- 
nication until  this  question  be  arranged. 

I believe  each  of  the  plans  you  notice  has  its 
peculiar  claims.  I should  prefer  the  oral  form, 
because  of  the  greater  freedom  it  affords  ; and 
besides,  I have  no  objection  that  this  or  any  other 
subject  shall  be  brought  before  a public  tribunal. 
I consider  this  to  be  a subject  vitally  affecting 
the  public  interest,  nor  can  it  be,  as  some  among 
you  seem  to  hold,  a degradation  of  the  claims  of 
the  Church,  to  defend  them  before  a popular  as- 
sembly. If,  therefore,  your  mind  be  not  entirely 
made  up,  I beg  you  to  reconsider  this  point. 

I have  however  precluded  myself  from  any 
right  to  insist  upon  this,  and  indeed  any  other 
form — but  the  object  of  this  note  is  to  request 
you  to  meet  me  half  way,  and  to  agree  at  least 
in  the  selection  of  one  of  the  daily  journals. 
I have  this  objection,  and  it  is  a serious  one, 
to  the  employment  of  the  columns  of  the  reli- 
gious  journals,  viz  : as  they  appear  only  once 
a week,  the  discussion  would  be  protracted  in- 
terminably. Besides,  these  journals  are  not  cir- 
culated  among  that  class  of  readers  who  are 
likely  to  be  influenced  by  the  discussion  ; for 
probably  their  minds  are  made  up  upon  the 
point  at  issue. 

I therefore  beg,  should  you  utterly  decline  an 
oral  discussion,  that  you  will  at  least  assent  to  the 
very  courteous  offer  of  the  “ respectable  journal” 
in  which  our  communications  have  already  ap. 
peared,  and  which  has  a claim  upon  us,  for  the 
courtesy  it  has  already  extended  to  us. 

As  soon  as  these  points  are  settled,  I will  be 
happy  to  give  a respectful  notice  to  your  last 
communications. 


With  much  regard,  Rev.  and 

Dear  sir,  I am  yours,  &c. 

, GEORGE  POTTS. 

Thursday  Morning,  Jan.  4,  1844. 


LETTER  V. 


REV.  DR.  WAINWRIGHT  TO  REV.  DR.  POTTS. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir : — I cannot  but  express  to 
you  my  great  surprise  at  your  preference  for  an 
oral  oyer  a written  discussion  of  any  controverted 
point  in  religion— more  especially  one  of  the  na- 
ture of  that  now  lying  between  us,  requiring,  as 
it  does,  if  it  be  thoroughly  treated,  the  careful 
and  deliberate  examination  of  “ Scripture  and 
ancient  authors.”  I have  as  little  objection  as 


yourself  to  having  “ this  or  any  other  subject 
brought  before  a public  tribunal.”  On  the  con- 
trary, if  there  is  anything  which  can  overcome 
my  repugnance  to  a religious  controversy,  and 
my  regret  at  having  been  forced  into  one  like  the 
present,  so  often  agitated  and  so  thoroughly  sift- 
ed, it  is  the  hope  of  its  attracting  the  notice  and 
exciting  the  interest  of  many  who  have  hereto- 
fore been  ignorant  of  it  or  indifferent  to  it. 

It  is  precisely  because  “ I consider  this  to  be 
a subject  vitally  affecting  the  public  interest,” 
that  I wish  it  to  be  presented  in  such  a form  that 
the  public  mind  may  not  be  hurried  over  it  with- 
out time  for  reflection,  or  be  distracted  or  divert- 
ed from  the  true  point  at  issue  by  those  subsidia- 
ries which  almost  inevitably  accompany  an  oral 
debate ; but  may  have  the  opportunity  to  pause 
and  deliberate  and  examine.  So  great  is  ray  con- 
fidence  in  the  security  of  the  position  I have  to 
maintain,  that  there  is  nothing  I so  much  de- 
sire, since  the  controversy  must  take  place,  as 
that  the  whole  community,  far  and  near,  should 
become  acquainted  with  its  whole  progress ; or, 
in  other  words,  that  it  should  be  a popular  one. 
And  it  is  because  a debate  in  the  Tabernacle  or 
any  such  place  would  embarrass,  if  not  defeat, 
this  object,  that  I am  opposed  to  the  arrange- 
ment you  press  so  earnestly. 

Does  Dr.  Potts  really  imagine  that  an  assem- 
blage, such  as  would  throng  the  Tabernacle  at 
the  admittance  price  of  a shilling  a head  (as  has 
been  proposed  in  one  quarter,)  to  amuse  them- 
selves with  the  sharp  encounter  of  two  clerical 
gladiators,  would  be  a suitable  tribunnl  to  judge 
and  decide  such  questions  as  those  which  must 
of  necessity  arise  in  the  discussion  ? Or  that, 
however  well  selected  such  an  audience  might  be 
on  one  occasion,  the  same  persons  could  be  in- 
duced to  come  and  attend  for  several  hours,  day 
after  day  and  through  several  weeks,  to  hear 
a theological  question  debated  ? And  if 
not  same  throughout,  and  auditors  of  the  whole 
of  both  sides  of  the  argument,  could  they  be 
well  informed  and  impartial  judges? 

An  oral  discussion  then  could  not  lead  to  any- 
thing  like  a satisfactory  final  arbitrament  between 
us.  But  you  prefer  it  “ because  of  the  greater 
freedom  it  affords.”  What  you  mean  by  this 
freedom  I do  not  precisely  comprehend,  but  if 
you  intend  by  it  what  it  might  be  interpreted  as 
implying,  loose  declamation,  and  the  liberty  of 
introducing  irrelevant  topics,  instead  of  being  re- 
stricted to  close  and  well  compacted  argument, 
and  confined  rigidly  to  the  matter  in  hand,  this 
is  a kind  of  freedom  whicn  I by  no  means  desire 
for  myself,  and  which  I am  willing  to  believe 
your  good  sense  would  lead  you  also  to  reject. 

My  objection  to  the  oral  form  of  debate, 
grounded  on  the  partial  and  limited  opportunity 
which  wGuld  be  thereby  afforded  to  the  whole 
community  for  becoming  acquainted  with  the  en- 
tire discussion,  might  be  obviated,  you  may  say, 
by  the  introduction  of  reporters  for  the  public 
press.  Now  I acknowledge  the  great  ability  and 
general  fidelity  of  this  useful  class  of  persons,  and 
although  through  the  inattention  of  some  of 
them,  on  a recent  occasion,  I have  been  made  to 
appear  to  you  to  have  spoken  in  a manner  “ re- 
markably incorrect  in  respect  to  language,  style, 
grammar,”  &/C.,  and  have  reason  to  believe  that 


10 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


through  their  defective  report  of  my  speech  at  the 
New-England  dinner  I have  been  exposed  to  the 
misfortune  of  being  drawn  into  the  present  con- 
troversy, I cannot  deny  that  upon  the  whole 
they  would  give  a pretty  full  and  fair  representa- 
tion of  the  discussion. 

This  task,  however,  would  be  more  difficult  in 
the  present  than  on  ordinary  occasions,  inas- 
much as  we  shall  probably  have  to  quote  au- 
thors with  whom  we  cannot  reasonably  suppose 
them  to  be  acquainted,  and  languages  with  which 
they  are  not  familiar.  If,  then,  the  intervention 
of  reporters  is  needed  to  give  a wider  dissemina- 
tion  to  arguments  which  must  be  otherwise  re- 
stricted to  a single  audience  m a single  room, 
will  it  not  be  preferable  that  the  debaters  them- 
selves shall  express  their  sentiments  in  a manner 
for  which  they  must  be  responsible,  and  which 
will  not  admit  of  their  escaping,  should  they 
make  an  unfortunate  demonstration,  under  the 
cover  of  an  inaccurate  report  ? I cannot  but 
think,  therefore,  that  the  great  body  of  the  pub'ic 
will  far  more  certainly  be  put  in  possession  of 
the  whole  argument  by  a written  than  by  an  oral 
discussion. 

The  only  advantage,  as  it  seems  to  me,  which 
the  public  could  gain  from  the  latter  arrange- 
ment, would  be  that  to  the  list  of  shows  and  po- 
pular amusements,  already  sufficiently  extensive, 
another  would  be  added.  And  as  to  the  princi- 
ples in  the  debate,  their  sole  benefit  would  be  the 
opportunity  of ' displaying  their  forensic  powers 
before  a large  and  promiscuous  auditory.  Now 
I take  it  for  granted  that  as  with  each  of  us 
the  maintenance  of  truth  and  not  victory  over 
an  opponent  is  the  paramount  wish,  and  that  as 
neither  of  us  has  an  unworthy  appetite  for  popu- 
lar applause  to  gratify,  or  is  disposed  to  lend 
himself  to  any  show  whatsoever,  to  promote  the 
popularity  of  any  public  place  of  resort,  we  shall 
best  preserve  our  own  self-respect  and  maintain 
our  personal  dignity  by  keeping  aloof  from  any 
oral  controversy. 

I have  thus,  as  you  requested  me  to  do,  “ re- 
considered this  point,”  and  my  mind  is  now  “ en- 
tirely made  up I “ utterly  decline  an  oral  dis- 
cussion,” and  I only  feel  regret  as  well  as  sur- 
prise that  your  urgency  upon  this  point  has 
obliged  me  to  enter  into  the  reasons  for  thus  de- 
dining,  and  that  our  sympathies  and  judgments 
upon  preliminary  matters  have  not  proved  as 
much  in  harmony  as  I confess  I had  supposed 
them  to  be. 

The  next  alternative  which  you  propose  is,  that 
we  should  employ  the  columns  of  a daily  paper 
rather  than  those  of  a religious  journal,  because, 
as  the  latter  appears  only  once  a week,  the  dis. 
cussion  would  be  “ protracted  interminably.”  I 
regret  to  perceive  this  intimation  of  your  views 
as  to  the  length  ot  this  controversy.  For  my 
part  I shall  wish  it  brought  to  a close  as  speedily 
as  possible,  for  I can  employ  my  time  much 
more  acceptably  to  myself,  and  as  I believe 
much  more  profitably,  in  the  peaceful  and  unob- 
trusive  duties  of  my  profession,  than  by  taking 
part  in  a discussion  which  has  often  employed 
the  pens  of  much  abler  and  more  learned  men. 

Your  otlier  reason  for  preferring  a secular  jour- 
nal to  a religious  one,  because  the  latter  “ is  not 
circulated  among  that  class  of  readers  who  are 


likely  to  be  influenced  by  the  discussion  ; for 
probably  their  minds  are  made  up  upon  the  point 
at  issue,”  does  not  offer  any  great  compliment  to 
“ this  class  of  readers”  on  the  score  of  candor  and 
openness  to  conviction.  However,  I will  not 
dwell  upon  this  point,  but  waiving  my  rights  and 
my  decided  preferences  in  this  particular,  at 
your  solicitation  will  consent  “ to  meet  you  half 
way.” 

The  courtesy  with  which  we  have  been  treated 
by  the  Commercial  Advertiser,  and  the  liberal 
offer  they  make  of  the  use  of  their  columns,  settle 
the  question  at  once  as  to  which  paper  we  shzdl 
select.  I agree  then,  that  all  my  replies  to  your 
communications  shall  be  sent  to  this  journal,  with 
the  express  understanding  that  the  editors  will  ab- 
stain from  all  comments  themselves  during  the 
progress  of  the  controversy,  and  will  not  allow 
the  introduction  of  any  communications  touch- 
ing the  question  ; so  that  the  attention  of  neither 
of  us  may  be  taken  up  by  warding  off  side-blows 
from  bystanders.  Awaiting,  then,  the  appear- 
ance of  your  next  letter,  I subscribe  myself. 

Very  respectfully, 

Uev.  and  de  r sir,  yours, 

JONA.  M.  WAINWEIOHT. 

Friday  morning,  Jan.  5th. 


LETTER  VI. 

REV.  DR.  POTTS  TO  REV.  DR.  WAINWRIGHT. 

January  2, 1344. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir — I have  now  before  me 
two  communications  from  your  pen,  one  dated 
the  30th  ult,  the  other  Jan.  2.  In  the  first,  you 
express  your  thanks  for  “ the  courteous  terms” 
in  which  my  letter  of  the  27th  ult.  was  “drawn 
up” — and  admit  that  “ as  to  the  important  point, 
and  the  one  which  alone  called  forth  my  letter, 
the  sentiment  you  uttered  {there  cannot  be  a 
Church  without  a Bishop)  is  accurately  report- 
ed ;”  farther  declaring  your  readiness  “ to  avow 
it  and  to  maintain  it  upon  every  suitable  occa- 
sion,”  and  concluding  with  some  complimentary 
remarks,  which  I will  do  my  best  to  merit.  The 
latter  communication,  of  this  date,  reached  me 
late  this  evening,  and  I now  propose  to  give  it  as 
prompt  an  acknowledgement  as  my  pressing  avo- 
cations will  permit. 

I have  attentively  and  respectfully  read  it  oft- 
ener  than  once,  and  with  an  honest  desire  to  give 
the  utmost  force  to  the  self-justification  which  is 
its  principal  object.  I am  not  surprised,  and  I 
will  add,  not  offended,  at  the  somewhat  marked 
change  in  the  tone  of  your  last  letter  ; inferring 
from  it,  however,  that,  upon  farther  reflection, 
you  had  come  to  the  conclusion  that  your  pre- 
vious commendation  of  “ my  courtesy”  had  been 
premature.  I say  this  did  not  surprise  me,  be- 
cause I felt  very  sure,  from  the  beginning,  that  if 
the  report  of  your  remarks  at  the  New-England 
festival  should  prove  to  be  correct,  you  would 
speedily  find  yourself  exposed  to  no  small  amount 
of  animadversion,  on  various  accounts,  and  hence 
would  naturally  entertain  some  displeasure  to- 
ward  any  one  who  might  call  pubfic  attention  to 
your  unenviable  position.  I can  say  with  un- 
affected sincerity  that  it  pains  me  to  find  you  in 
this  position,  and  still  more  it  pains  me  to  be  the 
instrument  of  exposing  it  to  the  public  view. 

I am  perhaps  indulging  a vain  hope  when  I 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


11 


beg  you  to  believe  this  ; for  you  have  already  im- 
plied, if  not  expressed,  a doubt  of  the  sincerity 
of  my  “ unwillingness  to  believe”  that  your  din- 
ner  remarks  had  been  correctly  reported.  I trust 
I am  not  in  the  habit  of  using  words  at  random. 
I felt  all  that  I described  an  unwillingness  to  be. 
lieve  it.  I confess  that  my  doubts  were  not  very 
sanguine,  but  they  were  real,  because,  first,  I am 
always  shocked  when  I meet  with  any  avowal 
of  the  unchurching  dogma ; secondly,  because 
the  manifest  incongruity,  to  call  it  by  no  harsher 
name,  between  the  dogma  and  the  occasion  in- 
dined  me  to  believe  it  possible  that  you  had  ac- 
companied it  with  some  unreported  qualifying 
phrase,  which  had  softened  its  aggressive  aspect ; 
and  thirdly,  because  I deemed  it  respectful  and 
charitable  to  suppose,  farther,  that  you  might  be 
one  of  the  number  of  prelates  who  hold  the  more 
tolerant  views  of  the  subject.  That  there  are 
such  (I  would  to  God  there  were  not  so  few 
among  your  clergy)  is  evident  from  your  own 
expression,  that  “ the  great  body  of  the  Catholic 
Church”  have  maintained  “ the  principle”  you 
affirmed. 

Why  should  I be  suspected  of  disingenuousness 
in  expressing  a hope  that  you  were  in  the  kind, 
hearted  minority,  embracing  many  able  minis- 
ters and  worthy  members  of  your  communion, 
who  cannot  go  the  length  of  delivering  over  the 
vast  majority  of  Protestant  Christendom  to  “ tbe 
uncovenanted  mercies”  of  God,  which  are  no 
mercies  at  all  ? I beg  ycur  pardon  if  I have  of- 
fended by  supposing  that  upon  the  point  of  “no 
Bishop,  no  Church,”  you  possibly  might  accord 
with  Cranmer,  Whitgift,  Usher,  Stillingfleet, 
Whately  and  others,  who  seem  to  have  had  some 
bowels  of  compassion — rather  than  with  Laud 
and  Dodwell,  and  Oxford  Tractarians,  who 
thought  no  more  of  cutting  off  the  heads  of  Chris- 
tian Churches  than  if  they  had  been  so  many 
thistles. 

Before  I proceed  to  set  the  main  issue  in  its 
true  light,  1 wish  to  make  a remark  or  two  upon 
a collateral  point,  yet  one  which  affects  the  ques- 
tion — who  is  the  aggressor  in  this  case  ? You 
seem  to  lay  considerable  stress  upon  the  circum- 
stance that  there  were  at  least  “ two  clergymen” 
present  at  the  New-England  dinner,  vyho  saw 
nothing  worthv  of  animadversion  in  your  re- 
marks ; I can  only  say  that  if  they  cared  so  lit- 
tie  for  their  own  denomination  as  to  be  content 
that  it  should  be  unchurched  so  publicly  and  so 
unceremoniously,  they  differ  materially  from  two 
other  clergymen  who  were  also  present,  but  who 
were  no  doubt  withheld  from  rebuking  such  an 
attack  upon  the  spot,  solely  by  the  consideration 
that  a festive  occasion  was  not  exactly  fitted  for 
bringing  “ a controversial  question  before  a pro- 
miscuous assemblage  of  persons.” 

In  this  connection,  I beg  leave  to  say  also,  once 
for  all,  that  I hesitated  some  time  before  I could 
make  up  my  mind  to  risk  the  suspicion  of  im- 
modesty  by  venturing  to  take  the  place  of  abler 
and  better  men.  I am  very  happy  to  say  that 
my  apprehensions  on  that  score  have  been  quieted 
by  my  knowledge  of  their  approval  of  the  step  I 
have  taken.  Still,  I wish  you  and  them  to  hold 
me  alone  responsible.  It  is  not,  I assure  you, 
from  “ a rabid  rage  for  controversy,”  or  from  any 
overweening  as  to  my  own  ability,  that  I have 


thus  turned  aside  from  my  more  congenial  occu- 
: pation  ; but  from  a conviction  of  the  impropriety 
of  letting  so  offensive  an  edict  of  excommunica- 
tion pass  unchallenged. 

When  Dr.  Wainwright,  a gentleman,  a scholar, 
a Christian  minister,  (in  each  of  which  titles 
there  seems  to  be  implied  the  idea  of  refined 
feelings  as  well  as  bland  manners,)  has  taken  so 
public,  so  extraordinary  an  occasion,  for  the  pur- 
[ pose  of  unchurching  the  whole  of  Protestant 
Christendom,  the  Churches  of  Germany,  Swit- 
zerland, France,  Great  Britain,  Holland  emd 
America — all  except  the  prelatical  bodies  in  Eng- 
land and  this  country — it  surely  is  high  time  to 
demand  that  the  public  should  be  put  in  posses- 
I sioc  of  the  evidence  by  which  so  bold  and  un- 
^ flinching  an  assertion  is  to  be  sustained ; or,  if 
j that  evidence  is  not  forthcoming,  it  is  equally 
I high  time  that  the  enormity  of  the  assumption 
I should  be  exposed.  There  are  hundreds  who  can 
I perform  the  task  better  than  myself,  but  still  I 
; believe  it  is  not  a task  which  requires  the  strength 
j of  a giant. 

j And  now  to  the  point ; for  I will  overlook  many 
! objectionable  matters  suggested  in  your  letter, 

! because  I am  anxious  to  reach  the  main  point  as 
I speedily  as  possible.  The  sooner  we  settle  those 
i bearings  of  the  discussion  which  are  merely 
personal,  the  better  will  our  readers  be  satisfied, 
j I am  bound  to  say,  in  the  outset,  that  having 
j disclaimed  an  intention  to  offer  an  insult  to  the 
I anti-prelatical  Churches,  I willingly  discharge 
! you  from  .farther  responsibility  on  that  point, 
j Had  you,  in  addition,  been  pleased  to  qualify  your 
i proposition,  so  as  to  admit  the  ecclesiastical  rights 
of  those  Christian  bodies  who  ‘ hold  the  Head, 
even  Christ,’  I should  have  laid  down  ray  pen, 
i even  though  you  had  claimed  for  your  own  body 
I a lofty  superiority.  But  you  have  made  no  such 
! admission.  You  stand  now  where  you  stood, 
j when  rebuking  the  descendants  of  the  Puritans. 
I You  have  indeed  denied  any  intention  to  be  ‘ offen- 
i sive,’  or  ‘ exclusive,’  but  the  question  recurs,  was 
I not  ‘ the  principle’  you  affirmed,  offensive  because 
* exclusive?  We  are  virtually  charged  with  act- 
! ing  under  forged  commissions,  with  living  in  re- 
bellion against  God,  because  forsooth,  ‘ there 
cannot  be  a Church,^  sacred  and  venerable  name, 
the  name  of  onr  birth-place : — without  what  ? 
without  Christ  the  Divine  Redeemer?  No: 
‘ without  a Bishop.'  But  to  be  out  of  Christ’s 
I Church,  in  the  most  essential  meaning  of  the 
phrase,  is  to  be  out  of  the  pale  of  salvation.  And 
I hence  to  affirm  that  there  is  no  Church  unless  it 
have  a prelate,  is  to  affirm  something  that  goes 
i very  far  toward  shutting  heaven  against  the 
I whole  of  Protestant  Christendom,  with  the  ex- 
j ception  of  yourselves. 

I Now,  if  these  consequences  naturally  flow  from 
I your  position,  I ask  again  if  it  is  not  necessarily 
I an  “ offensive’'  position.  And  whether,  therefore, 

' you  did  not  assume  an  offensive  attitude  when 
I you  uttered  it  ? Let  us  settle  this  point  first,  and 
I afterwards  consider  the  plea  of  provocation  which 
I you  offer  in  self- vindication,  and  we  shall  then  be 
prepared  to  judge  of  the  propriety  of  your  at- 
■ tempt  to  alter  the  issue.  Your  object,  my  dear 
1 sir,  is  to  exchange  places  with  me.  So  I judge 
i from  the  drift  of  your  letter,  in  which  you  8j>eak 
of  “ the  public  attack”  I have  made  upon  you ; 


12 


A Church  without  a Bishop, 


of  my  having  given  you  a challenge  and  defi- 
ance  of  my  having  forced  you  to  follow  me  as 
**  a combatant”  in  “ a daily  newspaper and 
finally,  at  the  close  of  your  letter,  you  leave  the 
post  you  assumed  on  the  22d  December,  and  call 
upon  me  to  prove  my  negative  of  your  proposition. 
In  short,  you  wish  to  assume  the  attitude  of  de- 
fendant  in  this  case,  and  to  present  me  in  the 
character  of  an  assailant.  This  is  a very  ancient 
expedient  in  controversy,  and  is  always  resorted 
to  by  disputants  who  wish  to  avert  from  them- 
selves  the  “ imputation  of  having  justly  provoked 
a religious  controversy,”  and  to  secure  the  sym- 
pathy of  the  by-standers,  as  wantonly  assailed 
persons.  I admit  there  is  an  advantage  in  this, 
but  I think  it  can  be  shown  that  you  cannot  in 
this  instance  claim  it. 

Yox,  first  you  made  an  offensive  attach, noi  on- 
ly upon  the  probable  majority  of  your  hearers,  but 
upon  the  majority  of  the  Christian  Churches  and 
ministers  in  this  city.  Whether  meant  to  be  so, 
or  not,  it  was  so.  Whisper  “ the  principle”  in  the 
blandest  tones,  and  you  do  not  change  its  real 
character.  Say  that  you  hold  it  in  common  “ with 
the  great  body  of  the  Catholic  Church,”  you  can- 
not evade  the  responsibility  of  having  publicly  ut- 
tered an  offensive  thing,  by  sharing  that  responsi- 
bility with  others.  Nor  can  I imagine  a more  bel- 
ligerent style  than  that  of  the  remarks  which  im- 
mediately accompanied  it — “ an  arena” — “ a 
throwing  down  and  taking  up  of  the  gauntlet” — 
a readiness  “to  maintain  that  there  cannot  be  a 
Church  without  a Bishop.”  I ask  whether  it  was 
not  Dr.  Wainwright  who  “ compelled”  some  one 
to  follow  him  into  the  columns  of  “ a daily  news- 
paper for  surely  he  could  not  suppose  that  in 
these  days  of  newspapers  and  reporters,  all  that 
he  might  say  upon  this  occasion  would  not  be  im- 
mediately  sent  off  through  the  length  and  breadth 
of  the  land.  I have  seen  many  offensive  and  ex- 
clusive specimens  of  Churchism  but  never  one 
the  odiousness  of  which  was  more  perfectly  dis- 
embarrassed of  all  ornamental  drapery. 

But  secondly,  it  was  provoked — and  may  you 
therefore  justly  claim  to  be  excused  from  stand, 
ing  in  the  place  of  proponent  in  this  discussion  ? 
Now  what  was  the  alledged  provocation  ? I ad- 
mit that  this  is  the  most  important  point  in  the 
preliminary  question  now  under  consideration. 
What  was  the  provocation  ? Was  there  any  that 
justified  such  a public  repudiation  of  the  majority 
of  the  churches  of  the  Reformation  ? You  ex- 
pressly acquit  the  orator  of  any  intention  to  in- 
sult those  whom  you  call  “ Churchmen  but 
you  lay  the  whole  blame  upon  the  vehement  ap- 
plause of  the  audience.  It  was  their  noisy  cheer- 
ing of  the  orator’s  “ sentiment,”  as  you  term  it, 
that  developed  their  latent  detestation  of  prelacy, 
and  discovered  a determination  to  show  its  advo- 
cates how  unpopular  it  was. 

Indeed  you  intimate  that  there  was  something 
personal  in  the  cheering,  as  those  who  were 
guilty  of  it  “ must  have  known,  that  (you)  were 
placed  in  a very  conspicuous  position  as  the 
guest  of  the  society.”  I think  this  is  hardly 
charitable,  to  say  nothing  else,  for  I doubt  whe- 
ther the  persons  of  the  clergy  are  as  well  known 
as  their  names.  I presume  that  the  plaudits 
were  given  simply  to  the  statement  itself,  and 
therefore  the  question  finally  presented  itself  in 


this  form  : — Was  there  in  that  statement  any  at- 
tack, designed  or  not,  against  those  who  modestly 
call  themselves,  par  eminence.  Churchmen  ? and 
was  it  such  an  attack  as  imposed  upon  any  of 
that  number  a necessity  of  manifesting  his  ag- 
grieved feelings  ? This  is  the  turning  point  in 
deciding  whether  or  not  you  are  to  be  held  re- 
sponsible  .as  the  assailant  in  this  case. 

What,  then,  was  the  import  of  the  language 
which  seems  so  to  have  pleased  the  audience,  and 
to  have  displeased  you?  I went  no  farther  than 
to  say  that  in  Geneva  the  expatriated  Puritans 
formed  a republican  state  and  a republican 
church  ; and  this  he  mentioned  to  account  for 
the  republicanism  which  their  descendants  brought 
to  New-England. 

Now  I grant  you,  most  readily,  that  if  the  ap. 
plauded  sentence  had  been  so  framed  as  to  assert 
or  even  imply  that  this  Church  without  a Bishop 
was  the  only  legitimate  Church;  if  the  orator 
had  uttered  the  converse  or  rather  the  counter- 
part of  your  doctrine,  and  had  said  “ there  can- 
not be  a Church  withja  Bishop,”  he  would  have 
advanced  a dogma  as  offensive,  as  uncharitable, 
as  anti-Christian,  and,  I will  add,  as  ill-timed, 
as  the  dogma  which  you  felt  it  your  duty  to  ad- 
vance. 

I could  have  forgiven  some  exasperation  of 
feeling,  on  the  score  of  the  injustice  and  arrogant 
wantonness  of  the  assault.  Sir,  I rejoice  to  be 
able  to  say  that  you  cannot  find  on  the  pages  of 
any  book  of  the  least  authority  among  us,  or  in 
any  dinner  speech  that  ever  was  delivered,  the 
counterpart  of  your  proposition  affirmed.  Mr. 
Choate  did  not  affirm  it ; nor  was  this  “ the  sen- 
timent”  whicli  the  New-England  audience  saw 
fit  to  applaud,  not  having  the  fear  of  Churchmen 
before  their  eyes.  The  head  and  front  of  their 
offending  was  this  and  no  more,  that  they  dared 
to  insinuate  that  there  might  be  a Church  with- 
out a Bishop  ; that  the  Reformed  Churches  of  the 
continent  of  Europe  (all  of  which,  without  an  ex- 
ceplion,  had  rejected  prelacy)  were  lawful  Church- 
es; that  their  Ministers,say  Luther  and  a number  of 
others,  not  altogether  unknown  to  fame,  as  having 
done  a little  service  to  Religion  and  Liberty,  were 
not  usurpers  simply  because  no  Bishop  had  laid 
his  hand  upon  their  heads  ; that  their  marriages 
were  not  unlawful,  their  children  not  illegitimate, 
their  baptism  and  communion  at  the  Lord’s  table 
not  a farce.  In  one  word,  Mr.  Choate  did  no 
more  than  church  the  Genevan  and  Puritan  Chris, 
tians ; he  did  not  unchurch  the  prelatical  Chris- 
tians  of  England  or  even  of  Rome. 

Now  I beg  leave  to  say  that  this  is  the  mate- 
rial point,  and  it  decides  at  once  the  question  of 
your  true  position  in  the  ensuing  discussion,  by 
deciding  that  as  no  attack  was  made  upon  the 
validity  of  your  Church  organization,  so  you  were 
without  any  just  grounds  for  the  offensive,  I 
mean  the  aggressive,  attitude  which  you  assum- 
ed at  the  table,  when  you  told  your  audience  that 
you  would  be  willing  to  meet  even  the  orator  of 
the  day,  and  prove  that  his  Church  at  Geneva 
was  no  Church  because  “ there  cannot  be  a 
CHURCH  without  a Bishop.” 

This  is  your  proposition.  I mean  to  hold  you 
to  this  ; and  I now  call  upon  you  to  commence 
the  discussion  by  defining  your  terms.  In  an- 
swering  your  arguments,  I shall  have  the  oppor- 


A Chvrch  without  a Bishop. 


13 


tunity  I desire  to  “ prove  that  this  dogma  is 
pregnant  with  innumerable  evils,  theological,  so- 
cial and  civil,  and  that  it  is  unscriptural,  &c.&c.” 

I beg  from  you  three  definitions,  which  are  in- 
dispensable to  a right  understanding  of  your  pro- 
position : 

1.  What  is  the  Church  ? 

2.  What  is  the  Catholicity  of  the  Church  ? 

3.  What  is  a Bishop? 

With  an  apology  for  detaining  you  and  your 
readers  so  long,  believe  me,  very  respectfully,  your 
ob’t  servant,  GEORGE  POTTS. 

Janua^Ry  6,  1844. 

P.  S.  Your  reply  of  last  evening  to  my  note  of 
the  4th,  is  open  to  some  criticism,  but  I withhold 
it,  because  I do  not  wish  that  public  attention 
should  be  fatigued  with  the  discussion  of  collate- 
ral questions.  I send  the  preceding  letter  to  the 
journal  which  has  been  so  politely  offered  for  our 
use ; premising  that,  as  far  as  possible,  I will  not 
trespass  upon  the  com’tesy  of  the  editors,  by 
lengthened  articles. 

LETTER  Vir. 

REV.  DR.  WAINWRIGHT  TO  REV.  DR.  POTTS. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir — I had  really  supposed 
that  after  assenting  to  your  proposition,  to  “ meet 
you  half  way,”  all  the  preliminaries  were  definitely 
settled,  and  that  having  challenged  me  to  the 
controversy  and  pledged  yourself  to  the  proof  of 
an  affirmative  proposition,  you  would  of  course 
open  the  discussion.  What  was  my  astonishment, 
then,  to  discover  from  your  letter,  which  appeared 
on  Saturday,  that  a most  important  point  is  stil[ 
undecided  in  your  own  mind,  and  that  you  have 
not  yet  concluded  which  side  of  the  discussion  you 
will  assume. 

I begin  now  to  understand  what  you  mean  by 
that  “ freedom”  which  you  consider  one  of  the 
advantages  of  an  oral  debate.  One  of  its  privi- 
leges seems  to  be  the  liberty  to  change  sides  at 
your  pleasure.  I have  good  reason,  therefore,  to 
congratulate  myself  that  I am  not  tempted  to 
concede  more  than  I did  as  to  the  form  in  which 
our  disputation  should  be  conducted,  and  allow 
my  adversary  to  draw  me  into  an  arena  where 
this  dangerous  propensity  would  be  under  less 
control  than  I mean  it  shall  be,  now  that  we  are 
both  tied  down  to  our  deliberate,  recorded  lan- 
guage. If,  after  the  interchange  of  several  letters 
considerately  written — for  you  say  “ I trust  I am 
not  in  the  habit  of  using  words  at  random” — our 
respective  positions  are  not  defined,  I do  not  know 
how  many  hours’  worth  of  extemporaneous  words 
would  have  been  consumed  before  we  fairly  got  to 
work  in  good  logical  style — if  we  ever  did. 

In  your  first  letter  you  throw  out  to  me  a con- 
tingent challenge  in  case  I uttered  a certain  sen- 
timent, and  then  you  distinctly  enunciate  an 
affirmative  proposition,  and  express  your  readi- 
ness to  prove  it.  Let  me  recal  to  you  your  own 
words  : — “ I will  hold  myself  ready  to  prove  that 
this  proposition,  (viz:  that  there  cannot  be  a 
Church  without  a Bishop)  is  pregnant  with  in- 
numerable evil  consequences,  theological,  social 
and  civil ; and  that  it  is  unscriptural,  unchari- 
table, schismatical  and  anti-republican  in  its 
character.”  In  your  second  letter  you  confess 
that  your  attitude  is  that  of  the  challenger,  by 


acknowledging  that  you  have  precluded  yourself 
from  any  right  to  insist  upon  the  oral  or  any  other 
form  of  discussion,  this  being  my  privilege  as  the 
challenged  party.  This  is  your  language : — ” I 
have,  however,  precluded  myself  from  any  right 
to  insist  upon  this,  and  indeed  any  other  form, 
but  the  object  of  this  note  is  to  request  you  to 
meet  me  half  way,”  &c.  And  now  in  your  let- 
ter of  Saturday  you  coolly  turn  round  and  tell 
me  in  effect  that  I am  the  challenger  and  call 
upon  me  to  commence  the  discussion.  And  not 
only  so,  but  with  singular  modesty,  and  a very 
charitable  regard  for  my  incapacity  to  conduct 
my  own  side  of  the  question,  you  suggest  to  me 
the  very  mode  in  which  I am  to  begin,  and  select 
for  me  tho  words  which  it  will  be  necessary  for 
me  to  define. 

This  is  sufficiently  extraordinary ; — but  what 
is  more  remarkable  still,  and  a thing,  I suspect, 
unheard  of  before  in  any  scholastic  disputation, 
the  very  words  you  ask  me  to  define  are  constit- 
uent terms  in  your  own  affirmative  proposition  ! 
Thus  you  make  an  affirmation,  pledge  yourself  to 
prove  it,  and  then,  in  the  very  outset,  ask  of  your 
opponent  to  define  the  terms  which  govern  its 
meaning!  I can  hardly  believe  that  you  are 
aware  of  the  position  in  which  you  have  placed 
yourself.  You  say  that  “^with  unaffected  sin- 
cerity  it  pains  you  to  see  me  in  a certain  posi- 
tion,” (in  which  by  the  way  I do  not  find  my. 
self,  and  in  which,  I think,  I shall  convince 
the  community,  if  not  you,  that  I am  not,) 
“ and  still  more  it  pains  you  to  be  the  instru- 
ment of  exposing  it  to  public  view.”  Now  with 
a sincerity  at  least  as  unaffected,  I must  say  that 
it  gives  me  no  pain  at  all  to  expose  your  logical 
inaccuracy.  You  have  controverted  a proposi- 
tion of  mine,  arid  you  “ desire  to  have  the  oppor- 
tunity to  prove  that  this  dogma  is  pregnant  with 
innumerable  evils,  theological,  social  and  that  it 
is  unscriptural,”  «Scc. — and  in  the  very  same 
breath  you  ask  for  three  definitions,  “ which  are 
indispensable  to  a right  understanding  of  my  pro- 
position.” 

Now  if  these  definitions  are  indispensable  to 
the  understanding  of  my  proposition,  and  you 
have  not  yet  obtained  them,  you  certainly  do  not 
understand  it.  And  thus  you  have  undertaken  to 
prove  that  a proposition  which  you  confess  you 
do  not  understand  “ is  pregnant  with  innumera- 
ble evils,”  &c.  You  may  select  either  horn  of 
the  dilemma,  as  you  please.  If  you  did  under- 
stand MY  PROPOSITION  IT  IS  WORSE  THAN  TRI- 
FLING  TO  CALL  UPON  ME  NOW  TO  TELL  YOU  WHAT 
IT  MEANS.  If  YOU  DID  NOT  UNDERSTAND  IT,  WHAT 
RIGHT  HAD  YOU  TO  PLEDGE  YOURSELF  TO  PROVE 
IT  TO  BE  ^^unscriptural,  uncharitable,  schisinati. 
cal  and  anti-republican?'^  Besides,  as  a theolo*. 
gian  you  ought  to  know  the  meaning  of  a maxim 
which  has  been  extant  in  ecclesiastical  language 
for  centuries  upon  centuries  ; and  within  the  last 
three  hundred  years  thoroughly  debated  by  the 
ablest  theologians. 

You  advert  again  to  my  speech  at  the  New 
England  dinner.  Presuming  that  you  have  not 
yet  taken  the  pains  to  examine  an  accurate  re. 
port  of  it,  little  as  it  deserves  to  be  obtruded  be- 
fore the  public,  I append  one  in  order  that  yon 
may  have  no  farther  apology  for  misrepresenting 
its  bearings. 


14 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


Now  will  you  be  kind  enough  to  examine  my 
language  ? Do  I say  that  I throw  down  the 
gauntlet,  or  wish  or  intend  to  throw  it  down  ? No 
— but  that  if  thrown  down  I shall  be  ready  to 
take  it  up.  You  have  thrown  it  down,  and  I 
have  taken  it  up.  You  bear  on  your  shield  the 
motto  propounded  some  three  centuries  ago  —Ec- 
clesia  sine  Episcopo — a Church  without  a Bish- 
op. I bear  on  mine  the  same  which  w'as  on  the 
banner  of  the  Universal  Church,  without  dispute 
or  challenge,  for  1660  years,  and  which,  though 
since  challenged,  i^  yetl)orne  without  wavering 
by  far  the  greater  portion  of  Christendom.  Nulla 
Ecclesia  sine  Episcopo — No  Church  without  a. 
Bishop.  These  mottos  we  have  respectively 
borne  and  gloried  in  since  we  became  teachers  of 
the  Gospel,  and  we  might  have  continued  to  bear 
them  peacefully,  each  in  his  own  separate  theolo- 
gical walk  ; but  you  have  gone  out  of  your  way 
to  challenge  mine  ; 1 have  accepted  the  offer  of 
combat,  however  reluctantly,  from  my  utter  dis- 
like of  polemical  strife,  but  1 have  accepted  it. — 
And  now  wiien  the  lances  should  be  ready  in  the 
rest,  you  stop  and  wish  to  deprive  me  of  the  privi- 
leges of  the  defied.  Is  this  knightly  ? or,  in  the 
language  of  polished  life,  is  it  courteous?  or,  in 
the  better  language  of  religion,  is  it  kind  ? Char- 
ity suffereth  longhand  is  kind,  is  not  easily  pro- 
voked— thinketh  no  evil,  &c. 

As  to  the  “ unchurching  dogma  ” and  the  con- 
sequences you  so  liberally  draw  from  it,  I shall 
be  ready  to  meet  this  point,  and  show  your  mis- 
take as  to  the  opinions  and  feeling  of  Church- 
men,  when  you  come  to  sustain  that  division  of 
your  proposition,  “ uncharitable.” 

Let  us  now  distinctly  understand,  and  let  the 
public  understand,  what  are  our  respecti^^e  posi- 
tions. Upon  leaving  my  study  one  morning,  for 
the  discharge  of  my  parochial  duties,  I am  in- 
formed in  the  street,  to  my  great  surprise,  that  a 
letter  has  been  addressed  to  me  in  a public  print 
by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Potts.  It  is  put  info  my  hand  ; 
I give  it  a hasty  perusal ; and,  in  full  reliance 
upon  his  gentlemanly  character,  and  under  the 
influence  of  the  recollection  of  the  very  pleasant 
though  infrequent  intercourse  I have  had  with 
him,  I reply  to  it  as  being  courteous  and  kind. — 
Upon  a second  and  more  deliberate  examination 
at  home,  I discover  its  covert  design,  now  openly 
avowed  in  the  letter  to  which  I am  replying — “to 
expose  me  to  public  view  in  an  unenviable  posi- 
tion.” It  contains,  however,  a challenge  to  a 
public  discussion  in  case  I am  correctly  reported 
as  having  avowed  my  belief  in  a certam  abstract 
proposition.  I acknowledge  the  accuracy  of  the 
report,  so  far  as  that  proposition  is  concerned. — 
The  preliminaries  as  to  place  and  form  of  debate 
are  discussed  and  settled.  And  now  Dr.  Potts 
wishes  to  change  his  ground  and  make  me  the 
challenger,  and  of  course  the  originator  of  a most 
unpleasant  and  uncalled-for  controversy. 

What  you  say,  sir,  about  the  Taberriacle  scene, 
with  a view  of  showing  that  no  sulRcieiit  provo- 
cation was  given  for  making  the  assertion,  and 
that  I was  therefore  the  aggressor,  (however  it 
may  be  adapted  for  your  purpose  or  popular  ef- 
fect) is  entirely  irrelevant. 

Suppose  it  to  be  precisely  as  you  put  it.  What 
then  ? It  was  not  upon  the  condition  that  I was 
the  “ aggressor”  in  making  the  assertion,  but 


solely  upon  the  condition  that  I made  it,  that  yon 
pledged  yourself  to  prove  it  unscriptural,  &c. 

In  conclusion,  therelore,  I have  only  to  repeat 
that  I did  make  the  assertion,  though  not  meaning 
it  as  a challenge;  and  that  if  you  choose  to  re- 
deem your  pledge  I am  ready  to  meet  you.  If 
you  do  not  choose  you  are  at  liberty  to  recede, 
and  I stand  in  the  position  I occupied  when  you 
c died  upon  me,  and  from  which  I shall  not  be 
either  enticed  or  driven. 

I am.  Rev.  and  dear  sir,  your  obedient  servant. 

JON  A.  M.  WAIN  WRIGHT. 

b’o^tDAY,,  January  8th. 

Dr.  WainwrighVs  Speech  at  the  New-England 
Dinner. 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen— I cannot  for  a moment  doubt 
that  the  expression,  “ The  ClerKy  of  New-England,”  in  th-» 
s?ntiment  just  given,  w s intended  to  embrace  all,  of  every 
name  and  shadi  of  religion.?  belie'  ; and  therefore,  having  my- 
self once  been  an  humble  member  of  that  venerated  body,  I 
venture,  in  behalf  of  all,  to  exi)re.ss  to  you  our  thanks  for  this 
honorable  mention  of  us,  and  for  the  manner  in  which  the  no 
tice  has  been  responded  to. 

O I a'.l  suirebleocca.iioQs  I would  be  the  last  to  shrink  from 
avowing  i:  d rnaint’i'.iing  the  distinctive  principles  of  that 
Church  of  which  1 have  the  great  privilege  of  b“ing  a minister. 
In  such  an  . ncounter  1 shou.d  not  fe^r,  b»ld  and  presumptuous 
as  the  declaration  may  seem,  to  confront  even  the  orator  of  the 
day,  who  has  so  gloriously  discharged  his  task,  and  in  the 
presence  of  many  of  us  this  moniii'g  has  hung  around  the  nak- 
ed rock  of  Plymouth  strings  of  richest  pearl  and  diamond  in 
his  e'oquent  addiess.  Isay  I should  not  fear  to  controvert 
even  h m.  In  a pait  of  this  splendid  performance,  speaking  of 
the  Puritans,  who  in  the  reign  of  Mary  w ere  driven  by  duel 
persecution  1 1 om  their  native  land  to  seek  a refuge  in  Ge-.eva, 
he  asserted  th-’.t  they  there  found  ‘a  government  without  a 
King,  and  a Church  without  a Bishop.” 

Notwithstanding  the  approba  ioH  with  W'hich  Ihi-s  senti- 
ment was  then  and  is  now  leceived,  I must  declare-  were  this 
the  proper  arena,  and  were  that  disnngu’sed  gentleman  to 
throw  down  the  gauntlet  on  this  question,  1 should  not  lor  an 
insta»'t  hesitate  to  take  it  up,  and  to  maintain,  ou  the  opposite 
that  f here  call  he  no  Chii'^'ch  witho%it  a Sishop,  But 
su  :h  (iis^ussi  ns  i»re  properly  biijishea  from  this  place  and 
ibis  society.  Here  we  know  nothing  of  distinctive  or  secta- 
rian opinions  upon  the  great  qurs  iors  of  religioft-  And  I 
rejoice  iliat  not  only  here  but  lliroughout  the  length  and 
bread'h  of  the  land,  whenever  the  cleigy  are  thus  h norably 
mentioned,  no  privibgedlorder  has  a right  to  get  up  and  arro- 
gate this  title  to  itself.  . . ^ 

By  the  oper.ition  of  the  Constituti'ii  of  our  Country,  we 
are  placed  upon  an  equal  footing — we  have  all  common 
richts,  atidif  the  Clergy  understand  their  true  iuteiests,  they 
will  ever  riliy  as  one  body  around  this  sacred  instiument.  and 
look  upon  it  as  the  ark  of  their  relitiicus  as  well  as  civil 
liberties.  Aio  ind  the  altar  of  fiieiidship  and  benp'olence. 
also,  reared  by  this  Society,  they  may  join  hand  in  hand,  and 
with  sentiments  of  mmual  respect  and  affection,  devote  them- 
selves to  one  common  object,  the_|)roniotioii  of  Ch  nity.  And 
when  they  retire  from  such  associations,  and  return  to  their 
respective  fields  of  labor,  and  ar-*  constrained,  perhaps,  to 
defend  the  distinctive  principles  of  their  F.aith,  would  that 
they  coil'd  ever  bear  in  lively  remembrance  the  Apostles 
words:  “ Now  abideth  Faith,  Hope  and  Charity — but  the 

greatest  of  these  is  ('harity.” 

The  Clergy  of  New-England  In  me  these  ejet 

awake  gratei'ul  and  animating  associations  (jon  lorbia  that 
I should  ever  permit  my  individual  opinions,  upon  questions 
of  religious  fai  h to  blind  my  eves  in  prejudice  to  tho^e  who 
differ  from  me.  or  close  the  affeclions  of  my  heait  agaiust 

*^*1^11.13  been  my  privilege  in  past  times  to  know,  more  or  less 
intimately,  cleigvmen  of  very  different  and  eviii  opposi.e 
opinions,  whom  f l ave,  ii-vertheless,  loved  and  venerated.— 
Who  that  knew  any  thing  oi'  Boston,  twenty  years  ago,  does 
not  rememher  with  unfeigned  respect,  the  sa^inted  Ol.evi-ieus, 
the  first  Roman  Catholic  Bishop  of  New-England-l-.is  elo- 
quence, his  smph  and  self  denying  lifn,  and  Im  unwearied 
devntioii  to  thecinseof  the  suffering  poor?  Bishop  Gns- 
woUl  the  meek  prelate  of  my  own  Church,  I knew  well 
who  that  knew,  did  uot  venerate  him  for  his  learning,  piety 

^n'ave'known,  too,  Kirkland,  the  accomplished  scholar  and 
Christian  gentleman,  the  dignified  head  oi  Harvard  Co  lege. 
Of  Dwight,  the  distinguished  President  of  Yale  Collegt— the 
It  arned  and  the  eloquent — I per'onally  know  very  little,  hut 
for  his  memory  1 entenai  i uu'eigiied  respect.  With  J^/han- 
ning  who.e  literary  fame  is  the  property  of  two  hemispheres, 

I w'asb'oughtinto  the  connexion  almost  of  relanonship. 

And  here  I cannot  refrain  from  naming  one  whose  religious 
teiie  s it  would  be  using,  perhaps,  not  too  strong  language  to 
say  that  I reprobare,  bu  whose  purity  of  lite,  lutegnty  of 
character  and  many  socirl  virtues  I remember  with  oeep  re- 
spect and  aftVe  ion.  1 mean  Dr.  Freeman  Ihese  are  types 
of  the  the  clergy  of  New-England.  I here,  have  been  in  v ears 
pastmauy  such,  and  in  years  to  come  I cannot  doubt  that 
there  will  be  many  more.  But  1 h ive  detained  you  too  long 
upon  such  a theme,  at  the  present  time.  I cannot,  however. 
d«ein  it  other  than  becoming  that  the  sentiment  to  which  1 


15 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


have  thus  inadequaielv  responded  should  be  given  on  this  oc- 
casion, n r is  it  out  of  place  for  me  thus  to  thank  von,  from 
the  fullness  of  my  heart,  for  the  honor  you  have  done  the 
Clergy  ol  New  England. 

LETTER  VIII. 

KEV.  DR.  POTTS  TO  REV.  DR.  WAINWRIGHT. 

Ret.  and  Dear  Sir — Before  I have  concluded 
this  letter  in  answer  to  yours  of  the  8(h  jnstant, 
our  readers  will  have  discovered  that  it  is  not  my 
purpose  to  retard  the  discussion  of  your  proposi- 
tion, by  insisting  upon  the  merely  technical  ques- 
tion,  who  shall,  by  the  laws  of  defence,  commence 
the  discussion.  I will  commence  it ; but,  in  do- 
ing so,  I mean  to  hold  you  strictly  to  the  propo- 
sition you  have  thrown  out  as  a defiance,  and  to 
keep  yourself  and  our  readers  in  mind  that  mine 
is  an  attitude  of  self-defence,  against  an  assault, 
and  an  unprovoked  assault,  upon  the  character 
and  rights  of  the  great  mass  of  our  Christian  fel- 
low-citizens. 

In  rny  last  I think  it  was  shown  conclusively 
that  this  was  the  case.  You  seem  to  have  a sus- 
piciori  that  the  close  ©f  my  letter,  which,  indeed, 
contained  the  gist  of  the  matter,  was  “ well  adapt- 
ed  for  my  purpose  or  popular  effect.”  You  pro- 
fess not  indeed  to  see  its  relevancy,  but  I think 
others  have  not  failed  to  perceive  that  my  state- 
ment of  the  circumstances  convicts  you  of  havino- 
made  a gratuitous  attack  upon  all  who  do  not 
think  that  Prelates  only  can  open  the  gates  of  the 
Christian  Church.  ‘ My  purpose,’  I admit,  was 
* popular  effect and  I feel  complimented  by  your 
thinking  that  my  argument  has  achieved  my  pur- 
pose. The  reason  of  its  fitness  for  ‘ popular  ef- 
fect’ is  not  to  be  found  in  any  special  skill  upon 
my  part  in  stating  the  facts,  but  in  the  nature  of 
the  facts  themselves.  In  a simple  matter  of  fact, 
the  best  judge  is  the  common  sense  of  common 
people.  I perceive  that  you  do  not  yourself  call 
in  question  the  force  of  my  argument,  that  as 
there  was  confessedly  nothing  in  Mr.  Choate’s 
language,  and  nothing  in  the  applause  of  the  au- 
dience, which  invaded  your  ecclesiastical  stand- 
ing, so  you  were  not  called  upon,  especially  upon 
that  occasion,  to  attack  the  ecclesiastical  standing 
of  the  general  community  of  Christians. 

You  will  understand  me,  however ; I do  not 
think  that  the  inappropriateness  of  time  and 
place  is  the  womt  feature  in  this  case  of  eccle- 
siastical proscription.  It  is  the  utter  unreason- 
ableness and  the  unrelieved  moral  deformity  of 
the  unchurching  dogma,  which,  in  my  view, 
constitute  its  offensive  character.  I admire 
boldness,  b«t  not  in  a bad  cause ; and  I hold 
that  to  be,  prima  facie,  a bad  cause,  which, 
either  in  the  pulpit  of  one  of  your  Churches,  or 
at  the  dinner-table  of  the>\.stor  House,  prompts 
any  man  thus  to  assail  the  Church  standing,  in- 
cluding the  faith,  hopes  and  rights,  of  his  fellow 
Christians.  When  you  set  up  a claim,  not  to  a 
superiority,  but  to  a monopoly  of  the  privileges 
belonging  to  the  house  of  God — when  you  set  up 
this  claim  in  behalf  of  a mere  fraction,  a mole- 
cule, of  the  Protestant  community— and  when 
such  confessedly  stupendous  consequences  are 
necessarily  involved  in  the  claim— it  cannot 
escape  the  most  unob.servant  reader,  that  to 
make  out  such  a claim,  its  advocates  ought  to 
be  prepared  with  proof,  little  short  of  mathe. 


matical  demonstration.  And  yet,  as  I shall 
hereafter  inme  fully  show,  the  extravagance  of 
the  claim  is  equalled  only  by  the  contradictory, 
indefinite,  and  I must  add  the  absolutely  ridicu- 
lous character  of  many  of  the  arguments  which 
are  employed  to  sustain  it.  This  aggravates  the 
unprovoked  assault  you  have  chosen  to  make, 
and  if,  in  the  course  of  my  future  remarks,  1 
shall  speak  of  the  high-Chuich  dogma  as  it  de- 
serves, I shall  hold  myself  absolved  from  blame 
as  ai  aggressor. 

Before  I proceed  to  do  for  you,  what  you  de- 
cline to  do  for  yourself,  i.  e.  define  the  terms  of 
your  own  proposition  so  that  the  reader  may  un- 
derstand  them,  (for  I shall  show  you  that  1 my- 
self understand  pretty  well  the  sense  you  affix  to 
lliern)  there  are  two  little  pieces  of  history,  given 
in  your  last  letter,  which  call  for  criticism. 

The  first  is  that  in  which  youaregiving  an  ac- 
count of  the  origin  of  this  discussion,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  “ letting  the  public  understand  what  are 
our  respective  positions.”  It  runs  thus  : “ Upon 
leaving  my  study  one  morning,  for  the  discharge 
of  my  parochial  duties,  I am  informed  in  the 
street,  to  my  great  surprise,  that  a letter  has  been 
addressed  to  me  in  a public  print  by  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Potts.  It  is  put  into  my  hand,”  &c.  &c.  This 
history  wants  the  title-page,  and  a few  of  the  first 
leaves.  Will  it  not  be  better  to  supply  the  hiatus 
and  begin  at  the  beginning  ? It  would  be  more 
cornplete  if  it  co.mrnenced  by  recording  the  polite 
invitation  which  led  you  to  the  New  England 
festival;  the  speech  of  the  New  England  orator  ; 
the  applause  which  accompanied  him  throughout, 
and  which  offended  you  so  deeply,  v/hen  he  gave 
a sort  of  ecclesiastical  genealogy  of  his  forefa- 
tliors;  your  determination  to  rebuke  the  orator 
and  the  audience,  by  declaring  your  belief,  not 
that  you  had  a better  genealogy,  but  that  their 
genealogy  was  absolutely  spurious;  your  taking  oc- 
casion two  or  three  hours  after,  (when  it  might  be 
supposed  that  you  had  had  time  for  deliberation)  to 
avow  that  if  the  orator  of  the  day  should  chal- 
lenge you,  you  would  prove  that  of  “ the  clergy  of 
New  England,  who  had  just  been  toasted,  there 
were  none  justly  entitled  to  the  name,  except  the 
‘ sainted  Cheverus,’  and  the  ‘ meek  Prelate  of 
your  own  Church,’  with  their  several  subordinates 
of  the  Papist  and  Protestant  priesthood  ; that  this 
attack  upon  the  self-respect  and  sensibilities  of 
ninetecn-twentieths,  if  not  more,  of  your  fellow 
citizens — I am  almost  afraid  to  say  fellow  Chris- 
tians— was  published  throughout  the  land ; and 
then,  that  after  all  this  had  come  to  pass,  and  you 
had  perhaps  congratulated  yourself  that  you  had 
chastised  Yankee  impertinence — then — “ upon 
leaving  your  study  one  morning,”  &c.  &c-  &c. 
Is  not  the  record  unfair  until  these  few  little 
items  are  prefixed  to  it  ? I will  leave  the  reader 
to  say,  whether  the  above  be  not  the  true  Genesis 
of  the  present  discussion. 

The  second  piece  of  history,  which  is  open  to 
animadversion  more  severe  than  I can  administer, 
is  that  which  informs  us  of  the  comparative  an- 
tiquity  and  universality  of  the  motto  which  “ you 
bear  upon  your  shield :”  » No  church  without  a 
Prelate.^'  At  the  very  unqualified  claim  you 
make  in  respect  to  this  motto,  I would  express 
my  wonder,  surprise,  astonishment,  &,c.  &c., 
were  I not  tired  with  that  common  practice  of 


A Church,  without  a Bishop. 


16 


disputants,  a very  efficient  thing  in  rhetoric,  but 
useless  in  logic.  Whatever  my  wonder  may  be, 

I will  not  utter  it.  Besides  which,  after  having 
ecen  how  familiarity  with  extravagant  statements 
often  obliterates  the  intellectual  sensibilities,  just 
as  a long  familiarity  with  an  offensive  odor  blunts 
the  sense  of  smell,  I have  no  longer  a right  even 
to  feel  surprise  at  the  occurrence  ot  such  a pUe- 
nomenon ; no  right  to  wonder  that  one,  who  had 
brought  his  mind  to  brave  the  consequences  of 
the  adoption  of  the  unchurching  dogma,  should 
first  of  all  find  it  easy  to  assert  in  a promiscuous 
companv  that  Prelacy  was  of  the  very  essence  of 
the  Church  of  God,  and  then  subsequently,  that 
this  doctrine  was  borne  on  the  banner  oj  the 
universal  Church,  without  challenge  or  dispute, 
1600  years”  Now  this  is  a wonderful  state- 
ment.  I might  show  that  so  far  is  this  from 
being  true,  the  doctrine  of  monopoly— as  I shall 
call  it  for  the  sake  of  bevity,  and  to  distinguish  it 
from  true  catholicity— is  not  countenanced  by 
the  voice  of  antiquity  ; that  there  were  writers 
who  distinctly  denied  it,  and  whole  Churches, 
the  Waldensian  for  instance,  which  always  re- 
fused  even  to  admit  the  element  of  Prelacy  into 
their  constitution;  and  all  this  long  before  the 
gloiious  Reformation.  This  is  unquestionable; 
but  that  the  reader  may  not  rely  upon  the  asser- 
tion  of  one  who,  he  may  suppose,  » uses  words 
at  random,”  I will  quote,  from  a disinterested 
witness,  a single  sentence  ; I will  sit  the  au- 
thoritv  of  the  learned  Prelate  Stillingfleet  oyer 
against  that  of  Dr.  Wainwright.  These  are  his 
vrords : “ I do  despair  of  finding  any  one  single 
testimony  in  all  “ antiquity,  which  doth  m plain 
terms  assert  episcopacy  as  it  was  settled  by  the 
practice  of  the  primitive  Church,  m ages  follow, 
ing  the  Apostles,  to  be  of  unalterable  divine 
right.”  So  much  for  the  “ unchallenged,  undis- 
puted”  antiquity  and  universality  of  your  motto. 

But  leaving  these  things  for  future  considera- 
tion,  I proceed  to  the  most  alarming  part  of  your 
last  communication — I mean  that  in  which  I am 
warned,  in  capital  letters,  of  a horned  dilemtna 
which  is  goring  'me.  It  may  be  obtuseness  m 
me,  but  I confess  I do  not  see  these  tremendous  . 

horns.  , A 

My  “ modest”  call  for  your  own  definition  ot 
the  terms  of  a proposition  which  yon  volunteered 
to  maintain,  and  which  is  the  basis  of  this  dis. 
cussion,  was  dictated  by  the  wish  to  put  our  read, 
ers  in  possession  of  your  meaning  in  your  own 
words.  As  to  myself  I had  a shrewd  notion  of 
their  meaning.  The  proposition  is  capable  of 
two  senses ; but  from  the  very  circumstances  in 
which  you  announced  it,  I am  myself  at  no  mss 
as  to  your  real  meaning.  But  I have  heretofore 
imaerined  that  no  discussion  could  be  carried  on 
without  a mutual  understanding  as  to  the  sense 
in  which  the  parties  mean  to  use  the  principal 
terms  and  phrases.  How  long  is  it  since  this  ap- 
parently indispensable  preliminary  has  been  ex- 
punged from  the  laws  of  debate  ? 

Why  you  should  manifest  a reluctance  to 
commence  the  discussion  by  defining  your  terms,” 
which  is  all  I asked  of  you,  is  more  than  I will 
undertake  to  explam.  But  as  you  decline  doing 
this,  and  as  I must  contrive  some  way  of  commg 
to  an  understanding  as  to  the  true  status  qucBS. 
tionis,  and  the  sense  which  our  readers  are  to 


fix  to  its  terms,  I propose  to  waive  even  this  right, 
and  to  do  your  work  for  you,  rather  than  to  waste 
time  in  an  idle  war  of  words.  In  doing  this,  I 
shall  at  the  same  time  state  wherein  your  defim- 
tions  and  mine  differ  in  meaning. 

First : What  is  the  meaning  of  the  word 
Church  in  your  proposition  ? I am  quite  willing 
to  take  the  definition  of  your  own  articles,  which 
is  as  follows : “ The  visible  Church  of  Christ  is 

a congregation  of  faithful  men,  in  which  the  pure 
word  of  God  is  preached,  and  the  sacraments  be 
duly  ministered  according  to  Christ’s  ordinance, 
in  all  things  that  of  necessity  are  requisite  to  the 
same.”— Art.  19.  This,  however,  does  not  fully 
express  the  high-Church  claims,  inasmuch  as  it 
does  not  declare,  (as  it  ought,  if  the  doctrine  of 
monopoly  were  true)  that  there  cannot  be  a congre- 
gation  of  faithful  men,  and  that  the  true  word  of 
God  cannot  be  preached,  nor  the  sacraments  duly 
administered,  &c.,  except  under  “ the  regimen  of 
Prelates.”  This  the  framers  of  your  articles  stu- 
diously avoided  saying,  for  it  is  well  known  that 
the  English  Reformers  fraternized  with  the  Re. 
formed  Churches  of  the  continent  of  Europe.— 
Since  the,  time  of  Laud,  however,  the  “ ne  Pre- 
late, no  Church”  dogma  has  been  held  by  an  in- 
creasing  number  of  your  communion,  with  more 
or  less  earnestness,  although  never  without  re- 
sistance upon  the  part  of  others,  until  it  must  be 
admitted  that  at  the  present  time  there  is  proba- 
bly a majority  of  Anglican  and  American  Prelat- 
ists,  who  hold  the  extreme  views  and  maintain 
that  Prelacy  is— not  simply  scriptural  arid  use- 
ful,  and  therefore  the  best  model  of  ecclesiastical 
polity_but  essential  to  the  very  being  of  a 
Church. 

Of  this  number  you  are  one ; and  the  lollow- 
ing  is  the  gloss  you  must  put  upon  your  Church 
article,  just  quoted.  The  Church  is  a congrega- 
tion  of  faithful  men,  and  the  pure  word  of  God  is 
preached  in  it,  and  it  alone  has  the  sacraments 
duly  administered,  because  it  has  Prelates, 
through  whom,  as  the  delegates  of  Christ,  and 
the  direct  successors  of  the  Apostles,  the  inferior 
orders  of  the  ministry  receive  a right  to  preach 
aad  grace  to  administer  Christian  ordmancss  ef- 
ficaciously. In  other  words,  the  statements  of 
these  extreme  Prelatists  warrant  us  in  saying  that 
though  men  may  believe,  teach  and  practice 
else  contained  in  the  word  of  God,  yet  if  they 
reject  Prelacy,  they  are  not  m the  Church  of 
God  at  all,  and  if  saved  at  all,  (of  which  some 
speak  hopefully,  but  others  doubtfully,)  must  be 
saved  “ as  by  fire,”  upon  some  undefinable  pnn- 
ciples  of  mercy  upon  which  nothing  that  is  said 
in  the  Gospel  will  justify  them  in  relying. 

Do  I misrepresent  your  views  of  the  mdispen- 
sableness  of  Prelacy  to  the  very  existence  of  a 
Church  ? If  so,  you  could  have  prevented  the 
possibility  of  misrepresentation,  had  you,  accord, 
ing  to  my  reasonable  call,  defined  your  terms  in 
your  own  language.  This  you  can  still  do. 

Secondly  : What  is  the  definition  of  the  office 

and  functions  of  a “ Bishop ? ” . 

In  your  theory  a Bishop  is  the  highest  of  three 
grades  of  clergy Bishops,  priests  and  deacons. 
He  is.  set  over  a particular  section  or  diocese,  as 
its  ecclesiastical  head,  and  is  invested  with  cer. 
tain  exclusive  rights,  which  rights  are  thus  s^ted 
by  a Prelate : “ The  right  to  ordain  and  confirm, 


A Church  loithout  a Bishop. 


11 


that  of  general  supervision  in  a diocese,  and  that 
of  the  chief  administration  of  discipline  : besides 
enjoying  all  the  powers  of  the  other  grades.” — 
(Dr.  H.  U.  Onderdonk.)  In  virtue  of  the  last 
two  of  these  rights,  expressed  with  an  indefinite 
comprehensiveness  which  we  will  examine  at  a 
subsequent  stage  in  the  discussion,  the  Prelate 
has  been  known  even  to  claim  a control  over  the 
proceedings  and  minutes  of  a convention. 

Farther,  in  order  to  the  right  institution  of  “ a 
Bishop,”  in  your  sense  of  the  term,  he  must  have 
received  his  ordination  from  other  prelates,  and 
they  again  from  others,  so  that  an  unbroken  chain 
may  convey  the  Episcopal  grace  from  the  Apos- 
ties  themselves.  This  is  the  far-famed  Apostol- 
ical succession,  of  which  so  much  has  been  made 
of  late  yeeirs.  Wh}^  this  chain  is  considered  of 
such  consequence  may  be  seen  by  the  reader  if 
he  will  peruse  the  following  quotations — two  out 
of  a multitude  which  I have  at  hand.  The  first 
is  from  a well-lmown  champion  of  Prelacy,  Dod- 
well,  in  the  following  moderate  terms.  I beg  the 
particular  notice  of  the  reader.  “ None  but  the 
Bislwps  can  unite  us  to  the  Father  and  the  Son. 
Whence  it  will  follow  that  whosoever  is  disunited 
from  the  visible  communion  of  the  Church  on 
earth,  and  particularly  from  the  visible  commun- 
ion of  the  Bishops,  must  consequently  be  disu- 
nited from  the  whole  visible  Catholic  Church 
upon  earth  ; and  not  only  so,  but  from  the  invisi- 
ble communion  of  the  holy  angels  and  saints  in 
Heaven,  and,  what  is  more,  from  Christ  and 
God  himself.  It  is  one  of  the  most  dreadful  ag- 
gravations of  the  condition  of  the  damned,  that 
they  are  banished  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord, 
and  the.  glory  of  his  power.  The  same  is  their 
condition  also  who  are  disunited  from  Christ,  by 
being  disunited  from  his  visible representatwe.” 

The  former  Prelate  of  this  diocese.  Dr.  Ho- 
bart, in  his  “ Companion  for  the  Altar,”  speaks 
the  following  language  ; it  is  equally  kind  as  the 
foregoing : “ But  where  the  Gospel  is  proclaimed 
communion  with  the  Church,  by  the  participa- 
tion of  its  ordinances,  at  the  hands  of  the  duly 
authorized  priesthood,  is  the  indispensable  condi- 
tion  of  salvation  ” — making  a soothing  excep- 
tion in  favor  of  schismatics  and  dissenters,  who 
separate  themselves  from  the  regular  priesthood 
through  “ involuntary  ignorance  and  error.” 

I do  not  mean  to  discuss  these  monstrosities 
now,  but  will  only  add  here  that  the  ground  upon 
which  such  assumptions  are  made  is,  that  from 
the  Apostles  the  Bishops  alone  derive  Episcopal 
grace,  which  they  communicate  to  the  inferior 
clergy  in  ordination,  and  which,  through  the 
ministrations  of  the  inferior  clergy,  is  commu- 
nicated  to  the  people  in  baptism  and  the  holy 
EuchaVist,  by  the  former  of  which  a spiritual 
life  is  given,  while  the  latter  that  spiritual  life  is 
fed  and  sustained 

On  the  other  hand,  our  definition  of  “a  Bish- 
op” makes  him  nothing  more  than  a pastor  or 
overseer  of  a particular  congregation,  who  is  in 
all  official  respects,  upon  an  equality  with  other 
pastors  ; who,  in  administering  the  discipline  of 
the  house  of  God,  is  associated  with  officers  who 
are  elected  by  the  people,  and  who,  in  administer- 
ing the  ordinances  of  the  Gospel,  pretends  to  be 
no  more  than  the  ministrator  of  emblematic  ordin- 
a aces,  whose  virtue  as  seals  of  the  covenant  de- 
£ 


pends  altogether  upon  the  faith  of  the  recipients. 
Ordination,  whether  with  or  without  the  imposi- 
tion of  hands,  is  no  more  than  a public  and  for- 
mal  setting  apart  of  a suitable  individual  to  the 
work  of  the  ministry,  and  is  performed  by  his 
predec-essors  in  the  ministry.  The  case  of  those 
churches  which  have  elected  one  out  of  the  number 
of  ministers  to  exercise  certain  supervisory  pow- 
ers over  the  rest,  as  is  the  fact  in  the  Methodist 
and  Lutheran  Churches,  is  not  an  exception  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  essential  parity  or  equality  of 
their  ministers.  These  bodies  do  not  claim  a di- 
vine right  for  their  Bishops  or  superintendents. 

And  now,  finally,  what  do  you  mean  by  the 
Catholic  Church  ? It  is  a phrase  found  m your 
former  letters,  and  will  probably  occur  again.  I 
shall  understand  you  to  mean  by  it  that  portion 
of  Christendom  in  which  the  above  views  as  to 
the  indispensableness  of  Prela-cy  are  to  be  found. 
That  is,  you  hold  that  Prelatical  bodies  alone  con- 
stitute the  Catholic  Church.  The  Romish,  the 
Greek,  the  Armenian  and  other  Eastern  Churches, 
together  with  the  English  and  American  Prela- 
tists,  are  the  only  component  parts  of  this  Church. 
And  their  catholicity  let  the  reader  observe,  con- 
sists  not  in  purity  of  doctrine  or  forms  of  wor- 
ship, (for  you  hold  all  those  I have  named,  except 
your  own,  to  be  more  or  less  corrupt)  but  in  their 
being  governed  by  Prelates.  This  is  the  essential 
element  of  their  catholicity,  this  their  redeeming 
excellence,  this  their  evidence  of  being  “ in  cove- 
nant with  God.” 

On  the  other  hand,  in  our  view  of  Catholicity, 
you  will  find  the  main  stress  laid  upon  the  main- 
tenance of  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  scheme 
of  redemption,  and  not  upon  the  presence  or  ab- 
sence of  any  external  form  of  polity.  We  admit 
that  even  Prelacy  does  not  vitiate  the  character 
of  a Church,  although  we  think  it  has  proved  it- 
self to  be  a foreign  and  unwholesome  element  in 
the  great  Christian  body.  Thus,  the  reader  will 
perceive  that  while  our  Catholicity  proves  its 
comprehensiveness  by  embracing  all  of  every 
name  whose  recognized  creeds  do  not  absolutely 
reject  the  fundamentals  of  Christian  religion, 
yours  renounces  all  who  do  not  admit  the  single 
item  of  Prelacy.  Which  of  these  views  best  de- 
serves the  name  let  the  reader  judge. 

I close  my  letter  by  saying  that  if  I had  been 
privileged  to  meet  you  face  to  face,  I should  have 
exercised  ‘ the  freedom,’  at  which  you  seem  to 
look  with  distaste,  of  insisting  at  once  upon  your 
obligation  to  give  those  definitions  of  your  terms, 
and  thus  have  saved  myself  the  task  of  trying  to 
reach  the  point  thus  indirectly,  and  the  necessity 
of  waiting  for  your  answer.  If  you  refuse  to  give 
me  your  definitions,  or  to  correct  those  I have 
given,  I shall  hold  myself  at  liberty  to  consider 
you  as  shrinking  from  the  contest. 

All  the  skirmishing  in  your  last  communica- 
tion as  to  who  is,  technically  speaking,  the  chal- 
lenger, is  of  little  consequence.  I am  resolved 
not  to  postpone  the  discussion  of  the  monstrous 
proposition  you  have  endorsed,  by  disputing  as  to 
who  shall  appropriate  this  title.  I do  not  feel,  I 
assure  you,  the  least  inclination  to  accept  “ the 
liberty  to  recede,”  which  you  kindly  liint  at,  but 
will  rather  waive  all  petty  questions  of  chrivalry, 
quite  certain  that,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end 
of  this  discussion^  it  will  be  seen  that  mine  is  the 


18 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


attitude  of  defence,  and  yours  that  of  an  assail- 
ant of  the  common  yrinciples  of  all  anti-Prelati- 
cal  Christendom.  This  is  the  important  consid- 
eration. 

I am,  Rev,  and  dear  sii,  your  obedient  servant, 

January  18.  GEORGE  POINTS. 

LETTER  IX. 

REV.  DR.  WAtNWRIOHT  TO  REV.  DR.  POTTS, 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir: — In  concludinjr  my  last 
letter  to  you  I said  that  I would  not  be  either 
“ enticed  or  driven  from  the  position  I occupied 
when  you  called  upon  me.”  Notwithstanding 
your  pertinacious  use  of  both  these  modes  of  cont 
-troversial  warfare,  I stand  there  still,  and  there 
I mean  to  stand.  You  shall  “ hold  me  strictly” 
as  you  please  to  the  proposition  I have  thrown 
out.  I wish  to  ke  held  there.  But  you  shall  not 
hold  me  to  assent  to  your  charge  that  this  pro, 
{x>sition  was  thrown  out  “ as  a defiance,”  or  that 
yours  is  the  “ attitude  of  self-defence  against  an 
unprovoked  assault.”  I have  denied  this  before 
—I  deny  it  again— if  repeated,  I shall  henceforth 
deny  it  as  a slander.  I uttered  “ no  defiance.” 
I attempted  no  “ecclesiastical  proscription.”  I 

“ unchurched”  no  denomination  of  Christia-ns. 

God  forbid  that  I,  or  any  of  those  who  symbolize 
with  me  in  religious  belief,  should  be  guilty  of 
such  arrogance  toward  their  fellow  men ; or,  what 
is  more  dreadful,  such  bold  assumption  of  the  sole 
prerogative  of  God.  The  Church  is  His,  and  He 
has  constituted  it  according  to  His  own  will. — 
Those  who  do  not  conform  to  its  requisitions  un- 
church themselves.  Instead  of  all  this  stale  de- 
famation, so  often  repeated  to  excite  popular  pre- 
judice— so  often  answered — prove  from  tscripture 
and  ancient  authors  that  Bishops  are  not  essential 
to  the  constitution  of  the  Christian  Church,  and 
then  }our  work  will  be  done,  and  efFcctually  done. 
But  until  you  have  accomplished  this,  all  the 
charges  in  which  you  so  liberally  indulge  about 
*‘exciunvenes8,  uncharitablness,  monopoly  of 
privileges,  unchurching,”  &c.  are  utterly  irrele- 
vant, and  only  calculated  (I  will  not  say  de- 
signed)  to  divert  the  public  mind  from  the  true 
issue. 

Enough  of  this,  however.  Let  me  recal  you 
once  more  to  your  true  position.  In  your  letter 
of  December  27th  you  say,  “I  will  hold  myself 
ready  (should  you  admit  that  the  reporter  of  your 
speech  has  not  done  you  injustice  at  least  in 
this  particular)  to  prove  that  this  projiosition 
(viz.  there  cannot  be  a Church,  &c.)  is  pregnant 
with  innumerable  evil  consequences,  social  and 
civil ; and  that  it  is  nnscrqUural,  zinchariiahle, 
schismatical  and  anti-republican  in  its  character.” 

I admit  the  correctness  of  the  report.  Issue  is 
then  joined,  and  what  you  have  undertaken  to 
prove  is  set  forth  in  distinct  and  emphatic  terms. 
You  certainly  will  not  say  that  you  did  not  un- 
derstand what  you  undertook  to  prove.  You  say, 
moreover,  that  “ you  arc  at  no  loss  as  to  my  real 
meaning.”  You  have  then  laid  your  work  for 
yourself.  Begin  to  execute  it,  if  that  is  your 
pleasure.  My  part  of  the  work  I shall  manage  in 
my  own  way  ; and  when  I come  to  use  terras  I 
will  leave  you  at  no  loss  as  to  their  meaning. 

AvS  to  the  ‘ two  little  pieces  of  history’  to  which 
you  allude,  the  first,  ia  the  modern  dspartment, 


is  really  too  small  a matter  to  make  it  worthy  niy 
while  to  show  hovv’  utterly  disingenuous  your  re- 
presentation is.  As  to  the  piece  of  ancient  his- 
tory, containing  the  allusion  to  the  Waldenscs, 
and  to  Bishop  Stillingfleet,  if  you  are  indeed  an 
Ignorant  as  you  appear  to  be  on  these  points,  and 
have  implicitly  followed  Dr.  Mason  and  Dr.  Mil- 
ler, without  taking  pains  to  acquaint  yourself  with 
the  unanswered  and  unanswerable  counter  state- 
ments of  Bishop  Hobart  and  Dr.  Bowden,  I will 
in  due  time,  when  the  questions  come  up  in  their 
proper  place,  endeavor  to  tlirow  some  light  upon 
them  for  your  benefit. 

My  wish  now  is  simply  to  let  the  public  know, 
through  my  letter  to  you,  as  you  avow  that  “pop- 
ular etFecf'  is  your  object,  that  to  you  arc  they 
indebted  for  this  unfortunate,  and  I may  add,  un- 
worthy exhibition  of  two  clergymen  contending 
in  the  public  newspafjers  about  a question  which 
has  been  discussed  over  and  over  again,  and  ac- 
cess to  the  ablest  popular  arguments  upon  both 
sides  of  which  is  very  easy,  by  reason  of  the  rc- 
publicatkm  in  cheap  fornis  of  ‘ Miller’s  Letters,’ 
&c.,  ‘ Bowden’s  Letters’  in  reply,  and  ‘ Hobart’s 
Apology  for  Apostolic  order  and  its  advocates.’— 
I assert  that  to  you,  and  to  you  alon,e  is  it  owing 
that  we  are  both  placed  in  this,  which  I will 
cheerfully  acknowledge  to  be  an  ‘ unenviable  po- 
sition that  to  you  is  it  owing  that  we  are  both 
subjected  to  the  ribald  remarks  of  licentious 
tongues  and  pens,  and  the  sober  disapprobation  of 
a large  portion  of  the  secular  press ; that  to  you 
is  it  owing  that  our  common  friends  and  a large 
portion  of  the  pious  and  sober-minded  of  all  de- 
nominations feel  deep  regret  and  mortification. — 
My  course  was  inevitable.  You  challenged  me 
to  controversy  upon  the  credit  of  a common  news- 
paper report ; you  took  no  private  and  friendly 
means  to  ascertain  its  accuracy ; when  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case  were  laid  before  you  you 
refused  to  be  convinced,  and  you  still  refuse. — 
Your  character  and  standing  in  the  community 
were  so  respectable,  that  I should  have  been  a 
traitor  to  my  own,  if  I had  shrunk  even  in  thought 
from  your  defiance.  I have  met  it,  and  I stand 
ready  to  abide  all  its  consequences.  You  now 
yield  the  point  we  have  thus  far  contended  for, 
ungraciously  as  I cannot  help  thinking,  but  you 
yield  it.  You  say  you  “ will  commence,”  and 
thus,  with  the  allinnative,  have  assumed  the 
responsibility  of  the  aggressor  and  the  defier.— 
Proceed. 

I beg  you  now  proceed  to  the  proof;  and  I 
take  the  liberty  to  beg  you  also  to  proceed  upon 
the  purely  scriptural  and  historical  merits  of  the 
question,  and  in  a Christian  spirit,  avoiding  (as 
I for  my  part,  by  God’s  help,  intend  to  do,)  all 
personalities,  all  injurious  epithets,  and  all  ap- 
peals to  mere  prejudice  and  passion.  Injurious 
epithets  decide  nothing ; for  if  my  doctiine  should 
be  God’s  truth,  what  can  they  avail  ? Apfieals 
to  mere  prejudice  and  passion  decide  nothing ; 
they  cannot  put  mj^  doctrine  in  the  wrong,  any 
more  than  the  universal  clamor  of  all  Ephesus 
put  St.  Paul’s  doctrine  in  the  wrong.  My  views 
of  Christian  truth,  you  are  bound  to  believe,  are 
as  sincerely  and  conscientiously  held  as  your 
own.  And  wherever  they  are  “ exclusive  ” as 
toward  yourself  or  others,  I assert  (what  certainly 
you  have  no  right  to  deny)  that  tliey  are  heW  in 


A Chvrch  without  a Bishop. 


19 


my  own  feelings  as  charitably  as  yours  can  be, 
where  the  latter  are  exclusive  as  toward  various 
otlier  highly  respectable  bodies  of  professing 
Christians. 

t Uivc  the  honor  to  be,  Rev  aiu!  dear  sir.  respectfullv  vonrs, 
JONA.  M.  WAINVVKIGHT. 

Friday,  January  12th. 


LETTER  X. 


RETV.  DR.  POTTS  TO  REV.  DR.  WAINWRIGIIT. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir  : — The  intervention  of  the 
duties  of  the  Sabbath  ha»  delayed  a reply  to  your 
last  communication.  I proceed  now  to  pay  my 
respects  to  it. 

“ To  the  hard  words  you  have  felt  at  liberty  to 
use,  I reply,  nothing;  to  your  reasoning,  this.” 

I.  I am  in  p»isession  of  abundant  evidence, 


even  worse  evils.  Such  results  are  to  be  expected 
when  a contest  for  great  principles  takes  place, 
and  I do  not  deny  that  they  are  to  be  ranked 
among  those  injurious  things  referred  to  by  the 
Saviour  under  the  name  of  “ offences,”  which 
He  gays  must  needs  occur,  but  of  which — be  it 
observed — He  throws  the  wliole  responsibility 
upon  Uiosc  who  wilfully  occasion  them. 

III.  Without  retorting  any  of  the  discourteous 
language  with  which  it  would  seem  you  desired 
to  anger  me,  I shall  now  take  the  liberty  of  stat- 
ing the  reasons  why  your  refusal  to  define  your 
position,  by  defining  in  your  own  language  the 
terms  you  have  used,  is  to  be  considered  as  a vir- 
tual shrinking  from  the  contest  for  which  you 
have  so  often  professed  your  readiness  and  con- 
fidence. In  the  first  place,  j'ou  arc  violating  the 
idmitted  rule  of  dialectics  which  requires  before- 


given  to  me  personallv  by  members  and  ministcTs 
of  various  denominations  of  Christians,  including  | hand  unambiguous  definitions  of  all  the  promin- 


number  of  your  own,  that  it  is  very  generally- 
desired  by  this  community  that  the  nature  and 
grounds  ©f  the  monopolizing  claims  of  high- 
church  partizans  should  be  examined,  and,  if  un- 
just, exposed.  Howmver,  therefore,  I might  feel 
myself  justified  in  refusing  any  reply  to  your  last 
communication,  because  of  its  angry  and  lordly 
tone,  I am  quite  resolved  that  none  of  these 
things  shall  ruffle  my  temper,  or  deter  me  from 


ent  terms  that  are  to  be  employed  in  a discussion. 
The  justice  of  this  rule  is  obvious  to  any  one  ; 
for  without  such  explicit  definitions,  it  will  be 
easy  for  an  opponent,  when  pressed  by  an  argu- 
ment founded  upon  thesujiposed  sense  of  hisown 
terms,  to  escape  by  affirming  that  he  did  not  use 
them  in  that  sense.  But  in  the  next  place,  we 
are  discussing  this  point  in  the  presence  of  the 
public.^  and  it  is  not  to  be  taken  for  granted  that 


what  I conceive  to  be  an  important  duty.  I in-  | public  are  as  well  acquainted  as  ourselves 
tend  to  go  forward  with  my  object,  although  it  is  j 
very  evident  that  in  doing  so  I arn  acting  in  op 


with  the  sense  in  which  these  terms  are  used  by 
either  of  us.  Tliey'^  can  appreciate  the  force  of 
poBUiori  tothe  wishes  of  yourself  and  your  friends.  ! arguments  on  either  side  only  by  first  knowing 
II.  I cannot  agree  with  you  that  there  is  nc-  I precise  question  of  debate.  And  finally,  lam 
cessarily  any  thing  “ unworthy”  of  the  Christian  i «uxious  that  you  should  set  forih  your  meaning 
or  ministerial  calling  in  making  a respectable  , your  own  words,  because  I desire  the  public  U> 
public  journal  the  medium  of  communication  j from  definitions  of  your  own,  that  this  is 

with  the  public  mind,  upon  a topic  which  was  ‘ no  small  matter,  about  which  it  is  idle  to  dispute, 
thought  of  sufficient  importance  to  be  introduced  Neither  ol  us  thinks  so.  It  is  a question,  which, 
to  the  public  attention  first  at  a dinner  table,  and  j »»  your  view,  involves  matters  of  life  and  death, 
then,  by  report,  through  the  daily  prints.  Is  it . mid  which,  in  my  vie'w,  afiects  Christian  liberty 
too  sacred  for  the  one,  then  I appeal  to  you  whe- ! opposed  to  a spiritual  despotism,  catholic  char- 
ther  it  was  not  loo  sacred  for  the  other.  This  * as  opposed  to  schismatic  bigotry,  the  spiritu- 
should  have  been  considered  beforehand,  and  the  ality  of  religion  as  opposed  to  a religion  of  sacra- 
consequences — apparently  so  disagreeable  to  you  I ments,  the  efficacy  ol  faith  in  the  Redeemer  aa 
—should  not  be  laid  at  the  door  of  him  who  feels  , opposed  to  the  efficacy  of  rites  and  ceremonies, 
bound  to  call  in  question  a public  and  most  offen-  j salvation  received  at  the  hands  of  Christ  as 
sive  attack,  as  publicly  as  it  was  made.  Whe.  i opposed  to  a salvation  deposited  in  the  hands,  and 
ther  it  w'asor  was  not  an  attack,  and  even  a defi- 1 only  dispensed  through  tlic  intervention,  of  man, 
aace,  against  unoffending  Christian  denomina-  j that  man  {>fcsbyter,  prelate  or  Pope.  These 
tions,  whose  several  church  relations  are  very  j are  some  of  the  points  involved,  and  therefore 
dear  to  them,  must  now  bo  left  to  the  decision  of  i the  justice  of  the  demand  which,  upon  the 
the  reader.  To  threaten  me  contingently  with  a ! pm  t of  the  public,  I reiterate,  for  a definition  of 
charge  of  slander,  ior  re-affirming  what  is  so  | yotir  terms.  You  say  3'ou  will  define  them  when 


perfectly  clear  even  to  members  of  your  owni 
church,  who  have  sought  rnc  out  to  s{>eak  of  this 
matter,  will  not  alter  the  truth  or  frighten  me 
from  calling  things  by  their  right  names.  I re- 
gret, with  you,  that  this  or  any  similar  discus- 
sion has  originated,  just  as  I regret  that  a neces- 
sity should  ever  arise  for  the  resistance  of  false 
and  injuriims  principles  or  oppressive  exactions 
of  any  kind.  I regret  that  there  is  injustice  in 
the  w'orld,  and  that  there  are  insidious  or  Auolent 
assaults  against  God’s  truth ; but  since  such 
things  do  exist,  I do  not  regret  that  individuals 
can  be  found  to  whom  the  puritj-  and  integrity  of 
truth  are  so  much  more  valuable  than  a peace 
bought  at  the  cost  of  a dastardly  submission  to 
error  that  they  are  willing  to  risk  ‘‘  the  ribald 
remarks  of  licentious  tongues  and  pens,”  and 


you  come  to  use  them  ; but  you  have  u.^^ed  them, 
and  the  proposition  in  which  you  have  used  them 
is  the  very  subject  of  debate.  All  I desire  is  to 
liave  the  public  put  in  possession  of  the  high- 
cliurch  .sense  of  them,  from  a source  which  none 
will  suspect,  as  possibly  unfair.  Until  therefore 
3^ou  give  them  yourself,  or  admit  tho.se  I have 
given,  you  enjoy  the  advantage  of  Indian  war. 
fare,  that  of  fighting  from  an  ambush.  Is  this, 
however,  an  honorable  position  for  one  who  should 
have  nothing  to  conceal,  and  who  has  said  that 
truth,  not  victory,  is  his  object  ? 

IV.  I must  now  beg  the  reader’s  attention  to 
a passage  in  3’ourl8Uit  communication,  which  can- 
not satisfy  tlie  least  observant,  although  it  denies 
as  slanderous  the  charges  which  I have  brought 
against  your  speech  at  the  New  England  festival, 


20 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


of  “ ecclesiastical  proscription,  unchurching  your 
fellow  Christians,  defying  them  to  prove  that  there 
can  be  a church  without  a prelate,  and  monopo- 
lizing the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  church  of 
Christ.”  Were  this  denial  accompanied  by  any 
expression  of  regret  that  you  had  incautiously 
used  the  language  ascribed  to  you,  and  did  not 
mean  it  to  be  understood  in  the  sense  naturally 
attached  to  the  terms,  I would  at  once  relinquish 
my  part  in  this  controversy.  But  this  you  have 
not  done.  That  language,  in  your  own  report  of 
it,  plainly  conveys  an  assertion  that  the  demonin- 
ations  of  Christians  in  this  and  other  lands  who 
are  not  blessed  with  Bishops  in  your  sense  of  the 
wmrd,  do  not  belong  to  the  church  of  Christ.  Can 
language  be  plainer  ? And  how  do  you  avert  the 
odium  which  must  attach  itself  to  such  a position  ? 
By  ascribing  to  them  the  guilt  and  shame  of  “un- 
churching” themselves.  You  have  not  unchurch- 
ed  them,  forsooth  ; they  have  unckurched  them, 
selves.  But  who  says  this  1 Not  themselves,  but 
Dr.  Wainwright  and  his  coadjutors.  'Ihis  is  a 
sophism  too  obvious  to  produce  much  effect  in  re- 
leasing you  from  the  stigma  against  which  you  so 
vehemently  protest,  and  which  involves  in  it  all 
the  proscription,  monopoly  and  exclusiveness 
which  I have — fearless  of  the  risk  of  uttering  a 
slander — charged  against  your  “principle,”— 
When  analyzed,  it  is  identical  in  meanirig  with  a 
similar  instance  of  bigotry,  which  I find  in  an  Ox- 
ford Tractist.  “How,”  he  asks,  “can  we  be 
justly  charged  with  unchurching  those  who  were 
never  churched  ?”  Instead  of  making  good  your 
denial,  or  justifying  your  threat  of  holding  me  re- 
sponsible for  slander,  the  passage  in  your  letter 
now  referred  to  only  repeats  the  offence,  with  ag- 
gravations. “ Be  quiet,  take  the  matter  coolly,” 
says  an  arrogant  gentleman  who  publicly  smites 
another  in  the  face — “ you  have  no  right  to  resist, 
for  you  are  a worthless  fellow,  and  for  that  reason 
I would  have  you  know  that  I did  not  strike  you 
— you  struck  yourself,^''  This  would  hardly  prove 
a satisfactory  mode  of  adjusting  an  insult. 

I happen  to  be  acquainted  with  the  “ unan- 
swered and  unanswerable”  arguments  and  state- 
ments  of  Dr.  Hobart  and  Dr.  Bowden,  and  there- 
fore  decline  any  benefit  from  the  plea  of  “ ig- 
norance,” which  you  politely  suggest.  Still  not 
having  “ implicitly  followed  Dr.  Mason  and  Dr. 
Miller,”  greatly  as  I admire  them  both,  I will,  of 
course,  be  the  more  open  to  the  prospective  illu- 
mination  so  kindly  promised  me. 

This,  I believe,  is  all  that  I need  to  say,  in  jus- 
tification of  the  course  I have  taken,  and  the 
views  I have  thus  far  advanced,  and  from  the 
farther  prosecution  of  which  I am  not  to  be  de- 
terred by  abusive  epithets,  or  charges  of  unworth}?^ 
motives,  no  matter  from  what  source  they  come. 
Those  who  know  me  know  that  nothing  but  a 
sense  of  duty  can  have  prompted  me  to  depart  so 
far  from  my  ordinary  habits  as  a man  of  peace. 
Forbearance  has  a limit. 

And  now  I shall  proceed  to  state  the  question, 
as  clearly  as  I can,  hoping  that  the  reader  may, 
ere  long,  come  at  a more  distinct  understanding 
as  to  your  views  of  the  point  at  issue.  Many 
persons  will  not  believe  that  your  words  mean 
all  that  they  appear  to  affirm.  Let  them  have 
an  opportunity  of  judging,  from  your  own  pen. 

The  language  of  your  proposition  is  well  known 


by  this  time — but  I will  repeat  it : — “ 1 here  can 
be  no  church  without  a prelate.” 

I refer  the  reader  to  my  last  letter  for  the  true 
sense  of  the  words  ‘ Church  ’ and  ‘ Bishop,’  when 
used  by  high-church  prelatists.  I will  not,  there- 
fore, repeat  them  here.  Thus  understood,  I pro- 
ceed to  redeem  my  pledge,  and  to  show  that  in 
its  nature  and  consequences  this  position,  though 
so  confidently  assumed,  is  unscriptural. 

I wish  that  two  considerations  may  be  kept  in 
view  throughout  my  remarks,  for  they  are  neees- 
sary  lor  a right  understanding  of  my  position. 
(I.)  That  I am  not,  in  this  discussion,  the  ad- 
vocate of  the  ecclesiastical  polity  of  that  part  of 
the  Christian  Church  to  which  I consider  it 
an  honor  to  belong,  except  so  far  as  that  polity^ 
involves  the  ministerial  rights  of  presbyters, 
or  parochial  (i.  e.  parish  or  congregational) 
Bishops.  In  affirming  their  rights,  1 affirm  the 
rights  of  the  presbyters  of  ail  anti-prelatical 
churches.  (II.)  I am  not  assailing  the  views  of 
those  of  our  fellow-Christians  who  believe  that 
prelacy  is  scriptural  and  expedient,  but  who  do 
not  believe  that  it  is  so  enjoined  in  scripture  as  to 
be  a sine  qua  non  in  the  constitution  of  the  Church 
of  Christ ; and  who  accordingly  admit  that  the 
order  of  a Presbyterian  ministry  is  valid,  though 
not  the  best  order.  With  such  I am  not  contend, 
ing  ; we  agree  to  differ ; we  concede  to  them 
what  they  concede  to  us,  a legitimate  standing  in 
the  catholic  church.  Tihe  dogma  which  I have 
undertaken  to  resist  and  expose,  is  that  which 
makes  prelacy  essential  to  the  very  being  of  the 
church,  BO  that  without  prelates  there  is  no  church, 
and  of  course,  no  valid  ministry  and  ordinances, 
no  promises  of  God,  no  lawful  reliance  upon  God’s 
grace,  no  covenanted  mercies,  and  no  just  and 
certain  hope  of  reaching  Heaven.  This  is  the 
dogma  which  you  have  received  from  Papist 
hands,  and  which  I hold  to  be  at  war  with  the 
spirit  and  letter  of  the  word  of  God, 

I.  Because  there  is  no  warrant  from  the  Word 
of  God  for  making  any  particular  external  form 
of  polity  a condition  of  that  Christian  fellowship 
and  communion  Vv^ith  God,  which  are  the  distin- 
guishing duties  and  privileges  of  the  Church  of 
Christ. 

If  there  be  such  a warrant,  produce  it.  The 
burden  of  proof  rests  on  you.  Let  any  one  ex- 
amine  the  tenor  of  the  preacliing  of  Christ  and 
his  Apostles,  and  then  point  to  a solitary  evidence 
that  they  placed,  as  you  do,  merely  external  rela- 
tions  upon  a level  with  the  exercises  of  the  spirit- 
ual graces,  of  repentance  toward  God,  and  faith 
in  Christ— or  that  they  made  the  exercise  of  these 
spiritual  affections  dependent  upon  the  individu- 
al’s  outward  relations  to  a form  of  church  polity. 
On  the  contrary,  this  is  the  very  error  for  wliich 
they  condemn  most  earnestly  the  high-church  pre- 
tensions of  the  Jews  of  their  day,  who  insisted 
upon  their  ecclesiastical  relationship  to  Abraham, 
their  possession  of  the  ritual,  their  circumcision, 
their  doctrine  of  uninterrupted  succession ; and 
who  were  so  tenacious  of  these  externals,  that  they 
were  for  bringing  some  of  them  into  the  Cluistian 
church  with  them.  (See  the  Epistle  to  the  Ga- 
latian  church.)  Understand  me,  I hold  the 
Church  of  Christ  to  be  a society,  a commumty 
of  believers ; and  agree  that  it  is  right  to  cop/orm 
to  the  general  principles  which  arc  to  be  -found  in 


A Church  without  a Bishop, 


21 


scripture  for  the  regulation  of  that  community, 
and  the  attainment  of  the  end  of  all  association, 
the  benefit  of  those  associated.  I admit  that  I 
find  what  I conceive  to  be  satisfactory  evidence 
of  a best  form  for  the  outward  and  visible  Church ; 
best,  because  best  adapted  for  the  developement  of 
the  grand  principles  of  individual  and  social  piety 
and  brotherhood.  I find  order  enjoined,  and  sub- 
mission to  order ; the  preaching  of  the  Gospel, 
and  obedience  to  the  Gospel  when  preached. — 
But  I do  not  find  any  authority  given  for  the  doc- 
trine you  teach,  that  one  particular  order  is  abso- 
lutely essential  to  the  being  of  a Church.  I do 
not  find  that  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  must 
depend  for  its  efficacy  upon  the  circumstance 
that  it  comes  to  the  public  ear  through  the  lips  of 
a ministry  constituted  after  a particular  fashion. 
The  blessing  of  God  is  promised  to  the  truth,  and 
to  men  only  as  they  preach  the  truth.  The  true 
apostolical  succession  is  a succession  of  apostolic 
truth — and  as  compared  with  such  succession,  a 
line  of  Prelates  reaching  back  to  the  days  of  the 
Apostles,  though  not  a link  in  the  chain  were 
wanting,  is  as  “ the  chaff  to  the  wheat.” 

Take  another  view  of  the  subject.  Profound 
learning,  combined  with  unquestionable  piety- 
has  been  long  employed  in  investigating  the  ques, 
tion  as  to  the  precise  and  detailed  forms  which 
the  earliest  Christian  communities  assumed,  un- 
der  the' eye  of  the  Apostles.  And  what  has  been 
the  result  of  their  inquiries?  An  acknowledged 
diversity  of  opinion.  Men  who  have  fully  agreed 
in  regard  to  the  great  moral  truths  of  the  Gos. 
pel  (and  let  any  one  take  the  written  creeds  of  the 
various  Christian  bodies  in  the  Protestant  Church, 
and  he  will  be  struck  with  this  doctrinal  unanimi- 
ty,) have  come  to  different  conclusions,  as  to  va- 
rious points  affecting  the  polity  or  external  or- 
ganization  of  Christian  communities. 

Now,  do  we  not  find  in  this  acknowledged  di- 
versity  of  sentiment  upon  the  question  of  formal 
religion  among  those  who  are  admitted  to  agree 
upon  the  question  of  real  religion,  proof  that 
scripture  lays  a very  different  stress  upon  them, 
and  the  most  powerful  argument  for  mutual  for- 
bearance and  toleration  ? And  is  it  not  incom- 
patible with  common  sense — I say  nothing  now 
of  charity — for  any  one  denomination,  with  these 
facts  before  them,  to  insist  upon  disowning  fel- 
low Christians  who  agree  with  them  in  every 
other  particular  of  faith  and  obedience  to  the 
spiritual  laws  of  Christ,  upon  the  single  ground 
that  they  have  not  conformed  to  their  views  of 
government  and  order?  Is  the  unity  of  the 
Christian  body  a unity  in  respect  to  form  ? or  not 
rather  a unity  in  faith  and  love  for  the  same 
grand  moving  truths  of  the  Gospel  ? Do  none  be- 
long to  the  body  of  Christ,  his  church,  but  such 
as  agree  with  us  in  every  thing?  And  if  differ- 
ences are  allowable,  as  you  must  admit,  shall  we 
restrict  our  communion  to  those  who  do  not  hold 
our  views  of  church  order,  although  they  may 
hold  every  thing  else?  In  one  word,  is  it  not  a 
sin  against  the  spirituality  of  Christianity,  that 
we  should  elevate  conformity  to  what  we  deem 
true  views  of  cliurch  order  to  a level  with  the 
“ weightier  matters  of  the  law,  fudgement,  mercy 
and  faith  ? ” 

I cannot  but  think  so.  And  strong  as  are  my 
preferences  for  a particular  form  of  government, 


I dare  not  deny,  as  you  have  done,  that  the  man 
who  is  “ a Christian”  is  by  that  very  fact  a mem- 
ber of  Christ’s  church.  You  are  bound  to  these 
alternatives  : either  to  admit  the  covenant  rela- 
tions of  other  Christian  churches,  or  by  denying 
them,  to  admit  that  God  has  poured  out  his  bless- 
ings, and  raised  up  hosts  of  eminent,  learned,  de- 
voted and  dseful  Christians,  among  Christian  bo- 
dies which  were  never  in  covenant  wuth  him  If, 
as  you  will  not  deny,  he  lias  actuall}^  done  the 
latter,  then  the  inference  is,  either  that  yours  is 
not  the  only  church,  or  that,  if  it  be,  it  is  not  the 
only  or  the  principal  channel  of  spiritual  good  to 
the  world.  In  other  words.  Heaven  has  made 
no  such  discrimination  between  you  and  others 
as  will  justify  your  exclusive  claims. 

This  is  a common  sense  argument,  and  it  con- 
firms the  position  taken  in  the  outset  of  these 
remarks,  namely,  that  the  formalities  of  religion 
ought  not  to  be  raised  to  the  level  of  the  spirituali- 
ties of  religion  ; because  all  fact  establishes  the. 
infinite  superiority  with  which  scripture  invests 
the  latter.  The  inference  we  draw  is  that  there 
is  no  warrant  from  scripture  for  making  any  par- 
ticular external  form  of  polity,  a condition  of  that 
Christian  fellowship  and  communion  with  God, 
which  are  distinguishing  duties  and  privileges  of 
the  church  of  Christ. 

Asking  pardon  for  the  length  of  this  commu- 
nication, I reserve  other  scriptural  considerations 
for  another  occasion,  and  remain, 

Ile.si)ectfully,  yours,  GEO.  FOTTS. 


LETTER  XI. 

REV.  DR.  W'AINWRIGKT  TO  REV.  DR.  POTTS. 

Rev.  AND  Dear  Sir  : The  first  half  of  your  let- 
ter is  fa^^en  up  with  matters  to  which  I shall  re- 
ply very  briefly. 

In  the  first  place  you  still  discuss  the  question 
as  to  who  is  the  assailing  party  in  this  contro- 
versy, and  reiterate  your  conviction  that  it  is  I 
who  am  the  aggressor.  My  dear  sir,  let  us  drop  this 
discussion.  I can  by  no  means  admit  the  justice 
of  your  charge.  Let  the  public  decide  between 
us  on  this  point — I am  quite  willing  to  submit  it 
to  their  decision. 

In  the  second  place  you  speak  of  the  “ angry 
and  lordly  tone”  of  my  last  letter — its  discourte- 
ous language,”  designed  “ to  anger”  you — and  of 
the  “ abusive  epithets”  and  charges  of  “unworthy 
motives.”  I am  totally  unable  to  perceive  that  I 
have  given  you  any  just  ground  to  speak  on  this 
wise.  I cannot  for  one  moment  admit  that  I am 
justly  chargeable  under  either  of  these  heads.  I 
have  only  to  say  again,  let  the  candid  public 
judge  between  us. 

All  the  other  points  in  your  preliminary  obser- 
vations, that  have  any  bearing  upon  the  simple 
question  in  dispute,  shall  be  disposed  of  in  their 
proper  places. 

We  have  now  got  fairly  to  “ the  dogma  ” which 
you  say  I “ have  received  from  Papist  hands,”  and 
which  you  hold  to  be  “ at  war  with  the  spirit  and 
letter  of  the  Word  of  God.”  I have  received  it 
from  Papist  hands  precisely  in  the  way  in  which 
you  have  received  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  and  the  Atonement,  &c. 
You  surely  will  not  esteem  it  a just  ground  of 
objection  to  any  doctrine  that  it  has  been  held 


22 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


by  the  Church  of  Rome  in  common  with  the 
great  body  of  the  Church  catholic,  at  all  times 
and  in  all  places.  And  as  regards  this  dogma, 
remember  that  its  truth  was  never  disputed,  and 
conformity  with  its  distinctive  provision  never 
departed  from  until  after  the  Reformation  ; that 
it  formed  no  ground  of  objection  in  the  minds  of 
the  first  reformers,  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  and 
that  these  great  men  yielded  it  up  with  marked 
reluctance,  and  only  from  the  compulsion  of  the 
circumstances  in  which  they  were  placed.  But 
the  question  now  properly  before  us  is,  where 
does  this  dogma,  as  you  term  it,  find  its  origin, 
not  through  what  channel  it  has  come  down  to 
us.  If  it  is  “ at  war  with  the  spirit  and  letter  of 
the  Word  of  God,”  as  you  say,  I acknowledge 
that  no  power  of  prescription,  no  universality  of 
acceptance,  could  sustain  it  for  one  moment. — 
Here  I join  issue  with  you,  and  say  that  the  prin- 
ciple,  there  ‘ can  be  no  Church  without  a Bishop,’ 
is  not  anti-scriptural,  but  is  in  perfect  consisten- 
cy “ with  the  spirit  and  letter  of  the  Word  of 
God.”  You  ask  me  again  for  ray  definition  of 
the  terms  “Church”  and  “Bishop.”  I reply 
that  I use  them  precisely  in  the  sense  in  which 
they  are  used  in  the  standards  of  the  Church  of 
which  I am  a member.  These  are  contained,  as 
you  know,  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer — to 
these  definitions  it  is  my  intention  rigidly  to  ad- 
here,  and  if  you  detect  in  my  remarks  any  de- 
parture from  this  resolution  and  will  expose  it,  I 
shall  thank  you  cheerfully  and  amend  the  error. 
I presume  you  are  equall}^  ready  to  be  bound  by 
your  own  standards,  and  I will  ask  you  for  no 
other  definitions  than  those  which  are  there 
recorded,  or  which  may  be  logically  inferred  from 
their  plain  propositions.  You  maintain  your 
affirmation,  1st,  on  this  ground — “ because  there 
is  no  warrant  from  the  Word  of  God  for  making 
any  particular  external  form  of  polity  a condition 
of  that  Christian  fellowship  and  communion  with 
God,  which  are  the  distinguishing  duties  and 
privileges  of  the  Church  of  Christ.”  Now  sup- 
pose it  were  as  you  affirm,  this  would  not  make 
Episcopacy  anti-scriptural  any  more  than  you 
will  allow  Presbyterianism  to  be  anti-scriptural. 
Episcopacy  excludes  Presbyterian  ordination  just 
as  Presbyterianism  excludes  congregational  or 
lay  ordination. 

But  this  reminds  me  that  we  have  one  or  two 
questions  to  settle  in  relation  to  your  exact  “ po- 
sition,” before  we  can  proceed  with  a clear  mu- 
tual understanding.  I take  it  for  granted  that 
you  admit  a ministry  by  God’s  appointment  to  be 
necessary  to  the  being  of  a Church,  and  that 
this  ministry  derives  its  authority,  not  from  men, 
nor  from  the  Church  itself,  but  from  Christ,  the 
head  of  the  Church.  We  must,  if  you  please,  be 
very  explicit  on  this  point,  or  our  discussion 
might  soon  assume  a rambling  and  discursive 
character,  which  it  is  the  interest  (for  the  saving 
of  time)  and,  I doubt  not,  the  wish  of  us  both  to 
avoid.  In  the  considerations  you  offer  as  “ ne- 
cessary  for  a right  understanding  of  your  posi- 
tion,”  you  say  that  you  are  “ not  the  advocate  of 
the  eccicsiasticai  polity  of  the  Church  to  which 
you  belong,  except  so  far  as  that  polity  involves 
the  ministerial  rights  of  presbyters  or  parochial 
(i.  e.  parish  or  congregational)  Bishops.”  Now 
what  are  these  ministerial  rights,  and  whence  are 


they  derived  ? I think  that  when  you  have  an- 
swered these  questions  the  Congregationalists  and 
the  Friends,  and  some  other  denominations,  will 
not  find  much  to  choose  between  us  as  “ to  chari- 
ty,” “exclusiveness,”  “unchurching,  &c. 

I presume,  then,  you  hold  to  the  doctrine  “that 
the  Christian  ministry  is  essential  to  the  Church 
and  must  always  exist.”  I dare  say  that  in  this 
point  we  should  both  coincide  as  to  what  is  “ the 
spirit  and  letter  of  the  Word  of  God.”  St.  Jerome, 
the  father  by  no  means  least  in  favor  with  you, 
says  that  is  “not  a Church  which  has  not  priests.” 
The  Lutherans,  in  the  Confession  of  Augsburg, 
declared  that  “ in  order  that  we  might  obtain 
justifying  faith  the  ministry  of  preaching  the  gos- 
pel and  administering  the  sacraments  was  insti- 
tuted,” and  they  add  that  they  condemn  “ the 
Anabaptists  and  others  who  think  that  men  re- 
ceive the  Holy  Spirit  without  the  external  word.” 
Calvin  argues  at  length  in  proof  of  the  necessity 
of  the  ministry  in  the  Church — saying,  that  “the 
Church  is  not  otherwise  edified  than  by  external 
preaching”  ; he  affirms  that  “ Christ  so  ordained 
the  office  of  the  ministry  in  the  Church,  that, 
were  it  taken  away,  the  Church  would  perish.” — 
In  your  own  confession  of  faith,  chapter  XXV., 
section  2d,  it  is  asserted — “ The  visible  Church, 
which  is  also  catholic  or  universal  under  Uie  Gos- 
pel, (not  confined  to  one  nation  as  before  under 
the  law,)  consist  of  all  those  throughout  the  world 
that  profess  the  true  religion,  together  with  their 
children,  and  is  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ — the  house  and  family  of  God — out  of 
which  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation” 
— “Unto  this  catholic,  visible  Church,  Christ 
hath  given  the  ministry,  oracles  and  ordinances 
of  God  for  the  gathering  and  perfecting  of  the 
saints  in  this  life,  to  the  end  of  the  world,  and 
doth  by  his  own  presence  and  spirit — according 
to  his  promise — make  them  effectual  thereunto.” 

Thus  Christ  is  represented  as  giving  the  minis- 
try equally  with  the  oracles  and  ordinances,  and 
to  the  same  end.  In  the  form  of  government  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  Chapter  III,  “Of  the 
officers  of  the  Church,”  we  read — “ Our  blessed 
Lord  at  first  collected  his  Church  out  of  different 
nations,  and  formed  it  into  one  body  by  the  mis- 
sion of  men  endowed  with  miraculous  gifts, 
which  have  long  ceased.”  “ The  ordinary  and 
perpetual  officers  of  the  Church  are  Bishops  or 
pastors,  &c.  And  here  Ephesians  IV.  11  12,  is 
referred  to  as  authority,  where  Christ  is  spoken 
of  as  appointing  the  ministry.  “ And  he  gave 
some  apostles;  and  some  prophets;  and  some 
evangelists;  and  some  pastors  and  teachers;  for 
the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the 
ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ.” 
As  touching  this  point,  then,  we  agree  that  a min- 
istry, divinely  appointed,  is  essential  to  the  being 
of  a Church.  I presume,  too,  you  would  admit  as 
readily  that  this  ministry  must  be  Apostolical ; 
derived  from  Christ  m some  way  through  the 
Apostles.  An  Apostolical  ministry,  then,  you 
must  acknowledge  to  be  “ essential  (to  use  your 
own  words)  to  the  very  being  of  a Church,  so  that 
without  it  there  is  no  Church,  and  of  course  ‘ no 
ordinances,  no  promises  of  God,  no  lawful  reli- 
ance upon  God’s  grace,  no  covenanted  mercies, 
and  no  ju-st  and  certain  hope  of  reaching  heaven.’  ” 
Observe,  I do  not  give  all  these  inferences  as  my 


A Church  without  a Bishop, 


23 


own.  You  have  put  them  upon  me  as  resulting 
from  my  position,  that  a Bishop,”or“  Prelate,” 
as  you  choose  to  quote  me,  is  essential  to  the  be- 
ing of  a Church.  I am  authorized,  therefore,  I 
think,  to  put  them  upon  you  as  resulting  from  the 
doctrine  we  hold  in  common,  that  an  Apostolical 
ministry  is  essential  to  the  being  of  a Church. 

You  have  unchurched,  then,  the  Quakers  and 
left  them  to  the  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God  : 
you  have  unchurched  the  Congregationalists,  you 
have  unchurched  the  whole  body  of  Methodists, 
you  have  unchurched  large  portions  if  not  the 
whole  of  the  Baptists,  to  the  full  extent  that  I un- 
church you.  Do  you  shrink  in  “horror”  from  a 
proposition  so  “ monstrous”  ? If  you  can  escape 
from  it  I shall  be  glad  to  know  how.  If  you  do 
confess  that  this  is  your  position,  as  far  as  I can 
see  you  must  relinquish  the  doctrine  of  the  minis- 
try  and  the  church,  as  maintained,  I believe,  in  all 
the  reformed  creeds  and  certainly  in  your  own. 
Now  this  is  a point  upon  which  I should  like  some 
satisfaction.  And  if  the  result  of  your  reconsi- 
deration  of  the  subject  should  be  that  we  symbolize 
on  this  grand  point,  perhaps  you  will  agree  with  me 
that  we  had  better  not  preier  against  each  other 
any  charges  of  “ uncharitableness,”  “ exclusive, 
ness”  “ unchurching,”  &:-c.,  but  since  we  both 
agree  that  “ there  is  warrant  from  the  Word  of  God 
for  making  a particular  external  form  of  polity  a 
condition  of  that  Christian  fellowship  and  com- 
munion  with  God  which  are  the  distinguishing 
duties  and  privileges  of  the  Church  of  Christ,” 
we  calmly  proceed  to  inquire  what  that  external 
form  of  polity  is.  You  will  perceive  that  I return 
to  you  your  own  first  argument  against  my  posi- 
tion, requesting  you  to  reconsider  it  and  see 
whether  it  does  not  militate  against  fair  inferences 
to  be  draw’n  from  the  standards  of  the  Church  to 
which  you  belong. 

I should  conclude  my  letter  here,  and  await 
your  answer,  for  I am  anxious  that  our  coinmu- 
nications  should  be  short,  by  being  restricted  as 
far  as  practicable  to  a single  point,  both  with  a 
view  to  our  own  convenience  and  what  I believe 
to  be  the  public  wnsh,  but  I must  correct  you  up- 
on  one  point  where  you  have  certainly  greatly 
misapprehended  my  views.  You  say  “ let  any 
one  examine  the  tenor  of  the  preaching  of  Christ 
and  his  Apostles,  and  then  point  to  a solitary  evi- 
dence  that  they  placed,  as  you  do,  merely  exter- 
nal  relations  upon  a level  with  the  exercise  of  the 
spiritual  graces  of  repentance  toward  God,  and 
faith  in  Christ.”  My  dear  sir,  I will  not  doubt 
your  sincerity  in  making  this  charge,  but  I be- 
seech you  to  examine  again  those  expressions  of 
mine  to  which  you  have  given  a construction  so 
abhorrent  to  my  clear  convictions  of  Christian 
truth.  Place  external  relations  upon  a level  with 
the  exercise  of  spiritual  graces — repentance  and 
faith  ? ! ! Never,  never,  could  I do  this.  Formalist 
as  you  may  believe  me  to  be,  I beseech  you  make 
me  not  appear  to  value  the  body  more  than  the 
eoul.  I believe  that  in  this  world  the  intimate 
union  of  both  is  essential  to  life.  The  body  we 
know  cannot  live  without  the  soul,  nor  have  I 
ever  yet  learned  that  God  has  permitted  a soul  to 
exist  in  this  probationary  state  without  a body, 
but  do  I therefore  place  as  high  a value  upon  the 
body  as  the  soul  ? By  no  means.  I only  contend 
that  what  “ God  hath  joined  together”  man 


should  not  attempt  “ to  put  asunder if  he  hath 
said  concerning  his  Church,  there  is  “one  Spirit,” 
he  hath  also  said  there  is  one  body.” 

I am,  Rev.  and  Dear  Sir.  yoor  obedient  servant, 

JON  A.  M.  WAiN  WRIGHT 

Wf.dnksd.iy,  Jan.  17th. 


LETTER  XII. 

REV.  DR.  roTTS  TO  REV.  DR.  WAINWRIGHT. 

Rev.  AND  Dear  Sir  : As  our  readers  will  have 
perceived,  I have  been  too  anxious  to  reach  the 
merits  of  the  question  before  us,  to  insist  with 
any  pertinacity  upon  technical  questions.  It  would 
have  been  very  easy,  as  I believe,  to  make  suc- 
cessful battle  upon  all  the  points  you  have  raised 
from  time  to  time,  but  as  it  would  have  entangled 
tha  question,  I have  waived  them.  I am  now  in 
some  hope  that  there  will  be,  henceforth,  a fair 
and  manly  grappling  with  the  real  point  at  issue 
between  us. 

I have  but  a single  remark  to  make,  before  I 
proceed  to  notice  your  last  communication.  It  is 
in  relation  to  my  supposition  that  your  preceding 
letter  was  composed  in  “ an  angry  and  lordly 
tone,”  and  contained  “ discourteous  language 
which  I forbore  to  retort,”  Ordinary  people  do 
not  deem  a charge  of  slander  very  civil ; yet  this 
charge  you  brought  against  me,  in  company  with 
other  ungracious  language,  “ stale  declamation,” 
“ instructing  my  ignorance,”  &,c.  Though  this 
style  of  dealing  with  an  opponent  passes  with 
many  as  equivalent  to  argument,  and  is  consider- 
ed an  evidence  of  cleverness,  I hope  no  tempta- 
tion whatever  will  seduce  me  into  the  use  of  it. 
Hard  arguments  and  hard  words  do  not  belong  to 
tlie  same  category. 

Passing  all  this,  I repeat  my  satisfaction  that 
“ we  have  now  fairly  got  to  the  dogma,  which  I 
hold  to  be  at  war  with  the  spirit  and  letter  of  the 
word  of  God,”  no  matter  now  from  what  hands 
you  have  received  it.  You  call  upon  me  to  “ re- 
member that  its  truth  was  never  disputed  until 
the  Reformation ; that  it  formed  no  ground  of 
objection  in  the  minds  of  the  first  Reformers  to 
the  Church  of  Rome,  and  that  these  great  men 
yielded  it  up  with  marked  reluctance,  &c.”  You 
can  hardly  expect  me  to  “ remember”  this,  for  I 
do  not  believe  it  to  have  been  so,  but  on  the  con- 
trary, I think  I can  show  that  it  was  not  so.  I 
will  not  touch  that  point  now,  for  you  admit  that 
this  question  is  not  properly  before  us,  and  that 
the  true  issue  is  whether,  as  you  have  affirmed. 
Prelacy  be  essential  to  the  being  of  the  Church 
of  Christ.  I am  glad  to  find  that  you  are  ready 
to  abide  by  the  Word  of  God,  as  the  only  au- 
thority which  we  are  now  to  summon  to  the  de- 
cision of  this  question. 

My  first  reply  to  your  affirmation,  that  Prelacy 
is  essential  to  the  being  of  the  Church,  and  the 
reply  to  which  I restricted  myself  in  my  last  letter, 
was  this — “ That  there  is  no  warrant  in  Scrip- 
tare  for  making  any  particular  external  forms  of 
polity  a condition  of  that  Christian  fellowship 
and  communion  with  God  which  are  the  distin- 
guishing duties  and  privileges  of  the  Church  of 
Christ.” 

You  say  that  were  the  argument  I have  ad- 
vanced  true,  i.  e.,  were  it  true  ‘ that  there  is  no 
warrant,’  &c.  «Si,c.,  this  would  not  ‘ make  Epis- 
! copacy  anti-Scriptural,’  any  more  than  Presby- 


24 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


tery.  This,  I beij  to  say,  is  not  the  point  in  hand, 
for  I admit  tliat  the  argument  bears  equally  on 
Prelacy  and  Presbytery,  as  respects  the  making 
either  of  them  exclusive.  Either  may,  according 
to  the  different  judgments  of  their  respective  ad- 
vocate, be  the  most  conformed  to  the  Scripture 
model,  and  yet  neither,  as  I maintain,  should  be 
raised  to  the  rank  of  an  essential  condition  of 
Christian  brotherhood  and  communion  with  God. 
You  may  think  Prelacy  most  clearly  taught  in 
Scripture,  as  I do  Presbytery,  but  the  question 
which  I pray  you  to  bear  in  mind,  is,  shall  we, 
on  the  ground  of  our  respective  opinions  on  a 
question  oi  forms,  about  which  multitudes  of  wise 
and  good  men  differ,  although  they  are  agreed  in 
respect  to  the  spiritualities  of  Christianity,  as  a 
moral  institute — shall  we,  I say,  proceed  to  de- 
liver  each  other  over  ‘ to  uncovenanted  mercy 
in  other  words,  excommunicate  each  other  from 
the  covenant  of  God,  and  its  promises  and  privil- 
eges ? Against  any  position  of  which  this  is  the 
natural  and  inevitable  consequence  my  whole  soul 
revolts. 

Now  what  is  your  reply  to  this  ? Why,  after 
assuming  two  things,  which  you  say  I must  ad- 
mit, and  which  I do  admit,  you  proceed  to  infer 
that  I must,  if  consistent,  run  upon  the  very  same 
consequences  which  I have  charged  against  your 
own  position.  You  quote  from  various  authori- 
ties, Jerome,  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  the  Lu- 
theran Church,  Calvin,  and  the  Presbyterian  Con- 
fession, to  show  that  a “ ministry”  is  essential  to 
the  visible  Church.  Agreed : 1 had  already  ad- 
mitted  this,  when  giving  an  account,  in  my  last 
letter,  of  what  I found  in  Scripture  concerning 
the  essentials  of  Church  order.  But  another  pos- 
tulate,  which  you  take  for  granted  I will  concede, 
is  that  this  ministry  “ must  be  apostolical,  that  is, 
derived  from  Christ  in  some  way  through  the 
Apostles.”  Now  I fancy  that  this  is  the  point 
where  your  argument  falters.  This  is  a venerable 
term,  this  “ Apostolical,”  and  not  more  favorite 
with  yourself  than  with  me  ; but  still  I am  satis- 
fied  there  is  a fallacy  in  your  use  of  it,  which  I 
will  proceed  to  notice  in  due  time.  Supposing  me 
then  to  admit  “ an  Apostolical  ministry  of  the 
word  and  ordinances,’’  as  essential  to  the  very 
being  of  a Church,  you  proceed  to  draw  the 
necessary  inferences  for  me  in  these  words — 
“You  have  unchurched,  then,  the  Quakers  and 
left  them  to  the  uncovanted  mercies  of  God ; you 
have  unchurched  the  Congregationalists ; you 
have  unchurched  the  whole  body  of  the  Metho- 
dists ; you  have  unchurched  large  portions  if  not 
the  whole  of  the  Baptists,  to  the  full  extent  that 
I unchurch  you  ; and  you  significantly  ask,  no 
doubt  with  some  triumph  over  my  foolish  incon- 
sistency, whether  I do  not  shrink  “ in  horror  from 
a proposition  so  monstrous.” 

I answer  this  question,  thus  put  in  irony,  em- 
phatically in  the  affirmative.  I do  shrink  from 
it  with  horror.  And  more  than  this,  were  your 
retort  of  this  charge  of  unchurching  the  several 
bodies  you  name  a just  retort,  I might  well  admit 
my  folly  for  having  forgotten  the  familiar  pro- 
verb, about  living  in  glass  houses  and  throwing 
stones.  But  f can  dispose  of  the  retort  in  a very 
summary  manner,  and  without  any  impeachment 
of  my  consistency,  and  can  show  that  I do  not 
unchurch  my  fellow  Christians  of  these  large  and 


respectable  denominations  (w'ho  hold  the  essen- 
tial truths  of  the  Gospel)  in  any  sense,  much  less 
in  the  sense  and  “ to  the-extent  ” in  which  yon. 
unchurch  me.  Am  I to  suppose  that  in  making 
the  above  averment  you  meant  to  be  understood 
as  asserting  a matter  of  fact  ? You  must  surely 
have  known  that  as  a matter  of  fact,  we  freely 
recognize  the  essential  character  and  Church 
rights  of  these  bodies  of  Christians.  This  is  no- 
torious. You  must  mean,  therefore,  that  if  I 
carry  out  my  principles,  I must  do,  what  you  do, 
unchurch  the  above  named  bodies.  Your  argu- 
ment is  ad  invidiam,  but  it  fails  to  answer  your 
object,  because  I shall  now  proceed  to  show  that 
it  not  only  contradicts  matter  of  fact,  but  is  built 
upon  a false  inference  of  your  own,  from  our 
views  of  what  constitutes  a valid  ministry. 

First.  It  contradicts  well  known  facts.  The 
only  apparent  exception  is  the  case  of  the 
Friends ; concerning  wffiom  as  a society  a yariety 
of  opitiions  exists.  They  are  divided  into  two 
opposite  parlies,  one  of  which  rejects,  as  wc  both 
believe,  the  very  fundamentals  of  Christianity, 
while  the  other  holds  fast  (so  far  as  I know)  to 
evangelical  truth,  though  with  a mixture  of  doc- 
trinal errors.  It  is  only  concerning  the  last  that 
there  can  be  any  question  m this  connection. — 
These  do  not  reject  a ministry,  for  they  have 
ministers  and  elders,  after  their  own  sort ; nor 
tlo  they  reject  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel  pro- 
fessedly, simply  contending  that  these  ordinances 
arc  to  be  observed  spiritually,  and  not  at  all  ex- 
ternally. Now  I consider  these  views  as  serious- 
ly defective,  but  if  through  these  views  they  hold 
communion  with  the  Head  of  the  Church,  I 
dare  not  deny  that  they  are  living  mernbers  of 
his  body.  Their  ecclesiastical  organization  may 
be  defective,  but  not  in  such  a sense  as  to  de- 
stroy their  hold  upon  the  blessings  of  God’s  cov- 
enant. 

As  to  the  other  bodies  named  in  the  above  ex- 
tract— Congregationalists,  Baptists,  Methodists, 
— there  is  not  even  a faint  shadow  of  authority 
for  the  assertion  that  I unchurch  them,  in  any 
sense,  least  of  all  in  the  sense  in  which  you  un- 
church me.  To  make  this  out,  you  must  be  able 
to  adduce /flc^s,  not  inferences.  The  facts  to  the 
contrary  lie  open  to  the  knowledge  of  any  man. 
The  mutual  interchange  of  ministerial  services 
proves  that  it  is  not  so.  If  a minister  of  any  one 
of  these  Churches  desires  to  enter  into  ihe  minis- 
try among  us  he  is  not  re-ordained ; should  a 
member  of  one  of  these  Churches  choose  to  unite 
with  us,  in  constant  or  only  occasional  com- 
munion, he  is  not  re  paptised.  You  cannot  point 
to  an  individual  among  us  who  wmuld  hesitate 
to  sit  down  at  the  table  of  our  common  Lord, 
with  accepted  members  of  any  of  these  Churches. 
We  honor  them,  as  the  possessors  of  the  truth, 
and  as  having  the  best  of  all  imprimaturs  to  at- 
test the  validity  of  their  ministry  and  ordinances, 
viz : the  seal  of  God’s  spirit,  which  has  made 
each  of  these  bodies  eminently  useful  in  improv- 
ing mankind.  We  rejoice  in  their  successes  in 
accomplishing  so  glorious  an  object,  and  consider 
their  successes  as  the  best  of  all  evidence  that 
God  is  with  them,  and  has  recognized  their  or- 
ganizations as  possessing  the  essential  features 
of  the  cathohe  Church.  Do  thev  send  forth 
their  devoted  missionaries  to  a foreign  field,  we 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


25 


never  interfere  with  their  labors,  as  you  have 
done  in  reference  to  those  you  call  Lutheran- Cal- 
vinists, but  we  bid  them  God  speed,  cherishing 
no  feelings  of  rivalry,  much  less  of  animosity, 
upon  the  ground  that  they  do  not  articulate  our 
Shibboleths  in  our  way.  What  son  or  daughter 
among  us  will  refuse  to  meet  a pious  parent  of 
another  Church,  at  the  Lord’s  table,  (as  is  noto- 
riously the  case  among  you,)  upon  the  ground 
that  it  is  not  the  Lord’s  table,  and  that  those 
who  meet  at  it  are  not  ministers  or  members  of 
Christ’s  Church  ? These  are  significant  ques- 
tions, simply  put,  and  I beg  the  reader  to  ponder 
them  and  decide  how  little  reason  there  is  for 
the  opinion  that  there  is  not  much  to  “ choose  be- 
tween us,  as  to  ‘ charity,’ ‘ exclusiveness,’ ‘ un- 
churching,” &-C. 

Such  is  the  state  of  the  facts.  But,  second, 
you  will  reply  that  our  practice  is  inconsistent 
with  the  principles  you  have  quoted  from  our 
formularies.  To  this  I answer,  that  in  those  for- 
mularies there  is  not  a word  which  condemns  our 
practice.  Let  the  reader  examine  your  jeferen- 
ces  and  decide  whether  they  are  liable  to  the 
charge  of  exclusiveness.  Farther,  let  him  turn 
to  Book  I.  Ch.  I.  of  the  Form  of  Government, 
and  he  will  hnd  a distinct  declaration  that  we 
“ believe  that  there  are  truths  and  forms  with  re. 
spect  to  which  men  of  good  characters  and  prin- 
ciples may  differ  and  that  “ in  all  these,  we 
think  it  the  duty,  both  of  private  Christians  and 
societies,  to  exercise  mutual  forbearance.”  What 
clearer  renunciation  of  exclusive  claims  can  be 
given  than  this  ? 

But  to  leave  no  room  for  the  charge  of  incon- 
sistency with  our  doctrines,  let  me  add  that  the 
principles  in  regard  to  a ministry,  which  are  set 
forth  in  our  symbols,  no  where  make  a linked 
succession  of  individuals  an  indispensable  requi- 
site in  ministerial  investiture.  It  is  at  this  point 
that  I detect  the  fallacy  of  your  retort — a fallacy 
already  adverted  to,  and  which  I promised  to  no- 
tice. You  demand  from  me  that  I should  admit 
an  Apostolical  ministry — i.  e.  “ one  derived,  in 
some  way,  from  Christ,  through  the  Apostles.” — 
I do  admit  it,  but  evidently  not  in  your  sense,  for 
in  your  sense  an  Apostolical  ministry  embraces 
the  idea  of  an  unbroken  series  of  individuals. — 
Now  were  I disposed,  I think  it  would  not  be 
difficult  to  show  that  if  there  be  any  weight  in 
the  claim  of  such  an  unbroken  series  of  ordina- 
tions, we  can  establish  as  perfect  a right  to  it  as 
you.  The  only  difference  between  us  being  this,, 
that  we  trace  the  series  through  the  ministers  of 
Christ’s  Church  as  presbyters^  and  you  as  pre~ 
lates.  But  we  lay  no  stress  upon  this,  first,  be- 
cause no  stress  is  laid  upon  it  in  Scripture,  (if 
there  be,  you  can  show  it,)  and  secondly,  because 
we  can  conceive  of  cases  in  which  it  would  be 
the  duty  of  Christian  believers  to  disregard  the 
punctilios  of  ecclesiastical  genealogy,  which  a re- 
gard for  regularity  and  fitness  would  lead  good 
men  to  observe  under  ordinary  circumstances. — 
Conceive,  for  instance,  of  a community  of  Chris- 
tians cast  upon  a desert  shore ; they  have  the 
word  of  God,  but  no  minister ; shall  they  con- 
tinue for  ever  without  the  offices  of  Christianity, 
and  not  rather  appoint  one  or  more  of  their  num- 
ber who  shall  give  himself  wholly  to  the  work  of 
ministering  God’s  word  and  ordinances  ? Such 


a one,  I believe  with  Luther,  would  be  as  truly  a 
presbyter  as  if  he  had  been  consecrated  by  all  the 
Bishops  in  the  world.  Conceive,  again,  of  the 
possibility  of  so"  extensive  an  apostacy  from  sub- 
stantial Christianity,  in  any  body  calling  itself  a 
Church,  as  to  make  communion  with  them  no 
longer  tolerable,  is  there  no  remedy  ? The  Eng- 
lish  reformers  thought  differently,  and  so  did  the 
reformers  of  the  continent,  and  so  in  their  turn 
did  Wesley  and  his  coadjutors,  and  a large  body 
of  the  Puritans.  In  one  word,  the  exercise  of 
the  right  of  separation  is  to  be  justified  or  con- 
demned, in  the  first  instance,  by  the  facts  which 
caused  the  separation.  If  unnecessary,  the  sepa- 
ration is  schisfii,  and  its  immediate  authors  arc 
to  be  held  responsible  ; but,  if  necessary,  the  sin 
of  schism  rests  upon  those  who  made  it  neces- 
sary. The  grand  point  is  not  whether  the  sece- 
ders  in  any  case  carry  along  with  them  a minis- 
try  derived  from  the  body  they  are  quitting,  but 
whether  they  carry  God’s  word  with  them  as  the 
charter  of  Christian  rights,  organize  themselves  in 
substantial  conformity  to  that,  and  then  humbly 
ask  God’s  blessing. 

I have  neither  time  nor  room  to  expand  these 
truths,  and  apply  them  to  the  case  in  hand.  Let 
it  be  sufficient  to  add,  at  present,  that  an  Apostol- 
ic ministry  authenticates  its  title  to  th©  name  by 
the  fact  of  its  ministering  Apostolic  truth  and  or- 
dinances, and  by  the  seal  of  God’s  blessing  upon 
its  services.  No  other  title-deed  can  be  compared 
with  this.  Who  gave  the  better  evidence  of  “di- 
vine  right”  to  preach  the  Gospel  and  administer 
its  symbolic  ordinances,  a Robert  Hall  or  a Dean 
Swift,  a Dr.  Chalmers  or  a Lawrence  Sterne  ? — 
A thousand  thoughts  crowd  upon  me  here,  but  I 
must  suppress  them. 

Thus,  I have  “ given  you  some  satisfaction,”  I 
hope,  by  showing  that  the  views  I hold  upon  the 
subject  of  an  “ Apostolic  ministry”  are  in  perfect 
harmony  with  the  detestation  with  which  I regard 
the  frequent  and  offensive  assaults  made  upon 
the  various  bodies  of  non-prelat1cal  Christians. — 
We  “ do  not,”  as  you  perceive,  “ symbolize  upon 
this  point.”  I have  carefully  reconsidered  “ my 
first  argument  against  your  position,  and  I think 
I have  shown,  both  from  fact  and  theory,  that  it 
does  not  militate  against  fair  inferences  drawn 
from  the  standards  of  my  own  Church  and  of 
consequence  that  it  is  not  only  a fair  argument 
itself,  but  fair  for  me  to  use,  and  that  you  have 
now  to  answer  or  admit.  It  still  remains  un- 
touched. 

I may  pause  then,  until  it  is  answered ; only 
observing  upon  the  last  paragraph  of  your  letter, 
that  in  saying  that  you  place  merely  external  re- 
lations upon  a level  with  the  exercise  of  the  spirit- 
ual graces  of  repentance  and  faith,  I stated  what 
I conceived  to  be  a fair  inference  from  the  high- 
Churoh  dogma,  which  makes  a Prelate  as  indis- 
pensable to  the  Church  as  a Savior.  I rejoice  at  the 
adhorrence  you  express  for  such  a consequence,  it 
is  a fearful  consequence,  and  as  I hope  to  be  able  at 
some  future  point  in  this  discussion  to  show  that  it 
is  a legitimate  child  of  its  parent,  may  I not  hope 
that  you  will  see  it  to  be  your  duty,  in  the  sight  of 
God,  to  renounce  the  parent  as  well  as  the  child  ? 
Would  to  God  it  might  be  so.  Oh,  sir,  this  dark 
world  is  not  so  full  of  Christians  that  we  can  af- 
ford to  alienate  any  of  them,  by  magnifying  our 


26 


^ Church  without  a Bishop. 


points  of  difference.  Why,  by  insulting  their  sen- 
sibilities, make  it  impossible  lor  them  to  greeT;  each 
other  in  respectful  love,  and  work  together  and 
contend  together  against  spiritual  wickedness  in 
high  and  low  places  ? Let  us  look  at  this  single 
city  in  which  our  lot  is  cast  ; its  thousands  who 
despise  the  truth,  the  history  and  present  state  of 
crime  and  ignorance,  the  yet  unoccupied  fields  for 
holy  enterprize,  the  progress  of  Papal  errors — let 
us  consider  these  things  but  a moment,  and  say 
whether,  instead  of  uniting  our  forces  against  this 
legion  of  evils,  we  shall  rather  whet  our  swords 
against  each  other,  and  imitate  the  spirit  of  the 
mistaken  disciple,  who  seems  to  have  claimed 
credit  of  his  Lord  for  his  exclusiveness,  saying 
“ master  we  found  one  casting  out  devils  in  thy 
name,  and  wo  forbade  him,  because  he  followeth 
not  with  us.’' 

B.espectfally,  your  obedient  servant, 

GEORGE  POTTS. 


LETTER  XIII. 

REV.  DR.  WAINWRIGHT  TO  REV.  DR.  POTTS. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir — We  are  by  no  means  so 
well  agreed  upon  first  principles  as  I had  sup- 
posed, and  therefore,  to  my  regret,  I find  that  we 
have  not  arrived  at  that  stage  of  the  argument 
which  I thought  we  had  reached  when  I address, 
ed  to  you  my  last  letter.  The  necessity  is  now 
imposed  upon  me  of  taking  a step  backward,  in 
order  to  meet  you  fairj.y.  Having  for  m}^  oppo- 
neat  an  eminent  divine  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  one  in  connection,  as  I am  informed, 
with  “ the  old  school,”  I certainly  took  it  for 
granted  that  he  would  hold  himself  bound  to 
maintain  that  doctrine,  upon  the  question  of  the 
Christian  ministry,  which  the  standards  of  his 
Church  so  clearly  setforth.  Upon  this  supposition 
the  statements  and  inferences  of  my  last  letter 
were  grounded. 

This  doctrine  I stated  in  substance  as  follows, 
viz.  that  the  Christian  Ministry  is  essential  to  the 
Church  and  must  always  exist — that  this  minis- 
try must  be  divinely  appointed — and  that  it  must 
be  Apostolical,  that  is,  deriving  its  commission 
in  some  way  from  Christ,  the  head  of  the  Church, 
through  the  Apostles.  Had  you  admitted  these 
first  principles  to  the  extent  in  which  I supposed, 
and  still  suppose, them  to  be  held  in  the  teaching  of 
your  standards,  the  points  between  us  would  have 
been  reduced  to  this  one : — What  is  the  nature  of 
the  Apostolical  ministry  ? does  it  subsist  in  one 
order  alone — that  of  presbyters — or  does  it  of  ne- 
cessity require  three  orders.  Bishops,  presbyters 
and  deacons,  and  how  is  the  title  to  this  ministry 
to  be  authenticated  ? 

As  I now  understand  you,  you  admit  that  a 
**  ministry”  is  essential  to  the  visible  Church.  I 
request  you  to  observe,  however,  that  the  postu- 
late which  I advanced,  as  the  one  to  which  I pre- 
sumed we  should  both  yield  our  assent,  was  not 
“ a ministry”  simply — but  “ a ministry  divinely 
appointed.” 

Now  from  a careful  examination  of  what  you 
advance  under  the  two  heads  of  “ facts  ” and 
**  principles,”  I am  compelled  to  infer  that  ac- 
cording to  your  theory  it  is  not  essential  that  the 
ministry  should  be  divinely  appointed.  It  may 
be  self-constituted  by  an  inward  call,  or  it  may 
be  constituted  by  the  simple  “ appointment,  by  a 


community  of  Christians,  of  one  or  more  of  their 
number,  who  shall  ffive  himself  wholly  to  the 
work  of  ministering  God’s  word  and  ordinances.” 
Thus  the  Friends,  you  acknowledge,  have  a min- 
istry. Their  “ organization  may  be  defective,” 
but  still  they  have  a ministry,  and  in  your  view 
ordinances  also.  How  this  allowance  of  ordi- 
nances, destitute  of  external  signs  and  seals,  ac- 
cords with  the  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Con- 
fession of  Faith  on  the  subject  of  sacraments,  I 
will  not  now  stop  to  inquire.  Under  your  head  of 
principles  you  state  a hypothetical  case — which, 
you  leave  me  to  infer,  therefore,  is  the  illustration 
of  a principle.  “ Conceive,”  you  say,  “ for  in- 
stance,  of  a community  of  Christians  cast  upon  a 
desert  shore  : they  have  the  word  of  God,  but  no 
minister  ; shall  they  continue  forever  without  the 
offices  of  Christianity,  and  not  rather  appoint  one 
or  more  of  their  number  who  shall  give  himself 
wholly  to  the  work  of  ministering  God’s  word 
and  ordinances  ? ” 

To  meet  this  imaginary  case  let  me  suppose 
another.  Suppose  that  in  the  shipwreck  which 
cast  this  unfortunate  community  upon  a desert 
shore,  they  had  lost  their  last  copy  of  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  but  had  saved  or  could  procure  mate- 
rials for  writing ; would  they  not,  for  their  own 
satisfaction  and  for  the  benefit  of  their  posterity, 
make  a record  of  all  they  could  remember  of  the 
word  of  God  ? But  would  it  be  the  word  of  God  ? 
And  would  they  not,  upon  the  first  opportunity, 
cast  aside  their  imperfect  manuscript,  and  with 
joy  and  gratitude  return  to  a complete  and  well 
authenticated  copy  of  the  holy  book  ? But  to 
reason  from  such  extreme  hypothetical  cases  is 
always  dangerous  and  unsatisfactory.  We  should 
be  careful  how  we  erect  an  extreme  case  of  ex- 
ception to  a general  rule  into  a principle.  Your 
use  of  the  one  just  mentioned,  however,  under 
the  head  of  “ principles,”  shows  that  while  you 
allow  a ministry  to  be  essential  to  the  visible 
Church,  you  do  not  admit  that  it  must  of  neces- 
sity be  “ divinely  appointed.” 

Now,  my  dear  sir,  although  I did  not  under- 
take to  defend  the  Presbyterian  doctrine  against 
Congregationalism,  and  perhaps  should  I succeed 
in  doing  so,  may  receive  no  thanks  for  my  pains, 
yet  as  this  course  will  serve  my  purpose  as  well 
as  any  other,  I shall  endeavor  to  controvert  the 
views  you  have  advanced  in  relation  to  the  min- 
istry,  by  an  appeal  to  the  Presbyterian  Confession 
of  Faith  and  the  Larger  Catechism. 

What,  then,  is  the  question  now  in  dispute  be- 
tween us  ? I will  state  it  again,  and  as  distinctly 
as  I can,  with  a view  to  a c-lear  comprehension 
by  those  of  our  readers  who  are  not  familiar  with 
theological  subjects  of  this  nature. 

It  is  not  whether  Bishops  in  any  sense,  that  is, 
diocesan  Bishops,  having  charge  of  many  con. 
gregations,  or  parochial  Bishops,  having  charge 
of  but  one,  are  essential  to  the  visible  Church — 
but  it  is  whether  a ministry  of  divine  appoint- 
ment— that  is,  a ministry  receiving  its  Com- 
mission from  other  ministers  possessing  divine 
authority  to  bestow  the  commission,  in  contra- 
distinction to  a ministry  holding  its  sole  authority 
through  the  appointment  of  the  members  of  a 
Christian  congregation,  is  essential  to  the  visible 
Church. 

On  this  question  I will,  with  your  permission. 


27 


.4  Church  tcithout  n Bishop. 


change  places  with  you  and  take  the  aflSrmative, 
that  the  former  and  not  the  latter  is  a true  minis- 
try according  to  the  Word  of  God. 

That  the  Church  is  avisible  body — that  is,  an 
association  of  men  professing  the  true  religion 
and  united  together  by  some  outward  organiza- 
tion — we  both  agree.  Now  what  is  essential  to 
this  organization  ? The  Confession  of  Faith, 
chapter  XXV,,  section  III.,  replies  : — “ Unto  this 
catholic  visible  Church  Christ  hath  given  the 
ministry,  oracles  and  ordinances  of  God,  for  the 
gathering  and  perfecting  of  the  saints,  in  this  life, 
to  the  end  of  the  world ; and  doth  by  his  own 
presence  and  spirit,  according  to  his  promise, 
make  them  effectual  thereunto.”  Now  Christ 
gave  the  “ ministry”  just  as  he  gave  the  “ oracles” 
and  “ ordinances,”  and  his  presence  and  spirit  are 
equally  promised  to  all.  It  is  styled  the  “ minis, 
try  of  God,”  just  as  the  Scripturs  are  styled  the 
“ oracles  of  God-”  No  man,  no  body  of  men,  how- 
ever  learned  or  pious,  could  indite  other  oracles,  or 
sanction  other  ordinances,  and  by  parity  of  rea- 
son they  could  not  appoint  any  other  ministry. 
And  he  has  left  the  ministry  in  no  painful  doubt 
as  to  its  continuance  ; for  when  he  gave  it  its 
grand  commission  he  said,  “ Lo  I am  with  you 
always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.”  The 
ministry  must  be  derived  from  Christ  or  it  is  no 
valid  ministry  at  all.  As  he  hath  conveyed  his 
word  to  us  through  a long  succession  of  ages, 
and  preserved  it  in  periods  of  ignorance,  con- 
fusion and  darkness,  so  hath  he  conveyed 
to  us  the  ministry  and  so  preserved  it;  and 
the  same  line  of  proof  and  argument  which 
traces  back  the  “ oracles”  and  “ordinances”  to 
the  Apostles’  days,  traces  back  the  “ ministry” 
and  proves  that  it  is  divinely  appointed. 

But  here  vve  touch  upon  the  question  of  sue 
cession — which,  however,  I mean  to  reserve  for* 
future  and  fuller  consideration.  The  present  ar- 
gument is  preliminary  ; for  if  you  can  set  aside 
the  necessity  of  a ministry  divinely  appointed, 
in  the  sense  that  I have  attached  to  the  words, 
the  question  of  succession  is  an  idle  one. 

I next  quote  the  Confession  of  Faith,  chapter 
xxvii.  section  4.  “There  be  only  two  sacra- 
ments ordained  by  Christ  our  Lord  in  the  Gos- 
pel, that  is  to  say,  baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the 
Lord  ; neither  of  which  may  be  dispensed  by  any 
but  by  a minister  of  the  word,  lawfully  ordained.” 
In  support  of  the  condition  that  this  minister  must 
be  lawfully  ordained,  tiie  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
chap.  V.  verse  4,  is  quoted : “ And  no  man  taketh 
this  honor  unto  himself,  but  he  that  is  called  of 
God,  as  was  Aaron.”  Now,  that  the  Confession  of 
Faith  is  right  in  thus  considering  the  divine  call 
of  Aaron  as  an  external  call,  is  manifest  in  that, 
according  to  Scripture,  it  was  not  a simple  spirit- 
ual  preparation  for  the  sacred  office,  nor  was  it  a 
designation  by  the  choice  of  the  congregation  of 
Israel ; but,  having  been  selected  by  God,  he  was 
visibly  set  apart  and  consecrated  by  divine  au- 
thority. And  moreover,  the  Gonfession  of  Faith 
might  greatly  have  strengthened  its  position,  had 
its  compilers  thought  it  needful,  by  referring  to 
the  followinfg  verse  ; “ So  also  Christ  glorified 

not  himself  to  be  made  an  high  priest : but  he 
that  said  unto  him.  Thou  art  my  Son,  to-day 
have  I begotten  thee.”  If  the  blessed  Saviour, 
prepared  as  he  was  by  the  indwelling  of  all  the 


i fullness  of  God’s  spirit  for  his  great  work  of  the 
ministry,  did  not  enter  upon  it  without  an  exter- 
nal ordination,  can  we  doubt  of  its  necessity  to 
the  complete  organization  of  his  Church  to  all  fu- 
ture time  ? 

But  power  greater  even  than  that  of  adminis- 
tering the  sacrements  is  conceded  to  the  ministry 
by  the  Confession  of  Faith,  Chapter  XXX,  sec- 
, tions  1 and  2 : “ The  Lord  Jesus,  as  King  and 
head  of  his  Church,  hath  therein  appointed  a go- 
vernment in  the  hand  of  Church  offices,  distinct 
from  the  civil  magistrate.  To  these  officers  the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  are  committed, 
by  virtue  whereof  they  have  power  respectively 
to  retain  and  remit  sins,  to  shut  that  kingdom 
against  the  impenitent  both  by  the  word  and  cen- 
sures ; and  to  open  it  unto  penitent  sinners  by  the 
ministry  of  the  Gospel,  and  by  absolution  from 
censure  as  occasion  shall  require.” 

Here  are  powers  which  no  man  certainly  would 
take  unto  himself,  and  which  it  would  be  reck, 
less  contempt  for  the  prerogatives  of  God  for  any 
congregation  of  men  to  pretend  to  confer.  Nor 
is  the  Presbyterian  Church  guilty  of  such  awful 
presumption,  for  it  is  expressly  acknowledged 
that  these  powers  are  derived  from  the  Lord  Jesus, 
and  they  are  exercised  in  virtue  of  authority 
j from  him — and  not  by  any  delegated  authority 
i from  the  Church. 

I go  forward  now  with  the  Larger  Catechism. 
Question  63  is  as  follows : “ What  are  the  spe- 
cial privileges  of  the  visible  Church.  ?” 

Answer — “ The  visible  Church  hath  the  privi- 
lege of  being  under  God’s  special  care  and  gov- 
ernment ; of  being  protected  and  preserved  in  all 
ages,  notwithstanding  the  opposition  of  all  ene- 
mies ; and  of  enjoying  the  communion  of  saints, 
the  ordinary  means  of  salvation,  and  offers  of 
grace  by  Christ  to  all  members  of  it,  in  the  min- 
''iSTRY  OF  THE  GosPEL,”  &.C.  The  visiblc  Church 
being  thus  under  God’s  special  care,  and  being 
protected  and  preserved  in  all  ages,  can  we 
suppose  that  he  would  suffer  the  “ ministry,” 
which  he  originally  gave  to  it  through  Christ,  to 
be  lost  any  more  than  the  “ oracles  and  ordi- 
nances ” which  he  also  gave  ? Again,  the  com- 
munion  of  saints,  the  ordinary  means  of  salva- 
tion, and  offers  of  grace  by  Christ,  are  enjoyed  in 
the  Ministry  of  the  Gospel.  If  these  blessings 
are  to  be  enjoyed  in  the  ministry  of  the  Gospel, 
this  is  the  channel  through  which  they  are  con- 
veyed  ; and  the  channel  must  be  as  permanent 
and  continuous  as  the  stream  which  is  to  flow 
through  it,  and  therefore  both  channel  and  stream 
are  of  divine  appointment. 

In  the  Larger  Catechism,  question  158  is  as 
follows : “ By  whom  is  the  word  of  God  to  be 
preached  ?”  Answer. — “ The  word  of  God  is 
to  be  preached  by  such  as  are  sufficiently  gifted, 
and  also  duly  approved  and  called  to  that  office.” 
The  inward  gift  alone,  then,  is  not  sufficient,  nor 
the  approval  of  this  gift  by  the  Church,  but  there 
must  be  a call  to  the  office.  Of  what  nature  is 
this  call  ? The  text  referred  to  answers  the  ques- 
tion : — “ And  no  man  taketh  this  honor  unto 
himself,  but  he  that  is  called  of  God,  as  was 
Aaron.”  Observe  that  this  same  text  was  cited 
in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  in  explanation  of 
what  lawlul  ordination  is.  To  be  “ duly  approved 
and  called,”  then,  is  to  be  lawfully  ordained,  and 


28 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


to  be  lawfully  ordained  is  to  beset  apart  outwardly 
by  those  possessing  authority  to  this  end  by  di- 
vine  appointment. 

I might  here  proceed  to  make  other  extracts 
from  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
and  sustain  those  I have  made  by  parallel  pas- 
sages from  the  standards  of  her  sister  Churches 
around  us,  and  illustrate  the  whole  by  unequivo- 
cal  language  from  the  teachings  of  her  ablest 
doctors — proving  that  the  undoubted  doctrine  of 
this  Church  is,  that  a ministry  divinely  appointed 
by  external  ordination  is  essential  to  the  visible 
Church,  and  proving,  moreover,  that  this  doc- 
trine has  the  surest  warrants  of  Scripture  and 
sound  reason — but  enough  has  been  raid. 

So  much  for  the  principles  maintained  by  your 
standards.  As  to  the  general  inconsistency  of 
your  practice,  as  indicated  in  the  array  of  facts 
which  you  have  drawn  up,  that  is  your  affair  and 
not  mine.  However,  if  you  will  permit  me  I will 
observe  that  I think  instances  are  not  wanting  to 
show  that  other  communions  interpret  the  stan- 
dards of  your  Church,  and  the  practice  of  that 
section  of  it  to  which  I suppose  you  belong,  in  the 
sensei  have  expressed,  rather  than  in  that  which, 
incautiously  perhaps  for  the  purpose  of  this  dis- 
cussion, you  have  asserted. 

The  Congregrationalists  do  not  seem  to  think 
that  you  are  one  with  them.  In  the  Congrega- 
tional Catechism,  bearing  the  imprint,  New- 
Haven,  A.  H.  Maltby,  1844,  the  last  question  of 
the  book  is : — “ In  what  important  respect  does 
the  Presbyterian  Church  agree  with  those  just 
mentioned,  (viz.  the  Protestant  Episcopal  and 
Methodist  Episcopal  Churches,)  contrary  to  the 
primitive  and  Congregational  system  ? Answer. 
“ In  depriving  the  brotherhood  of  each  particular 
Church  of  the  government  thereof,  and  vesting 
all  ecclesiastical  power  in  the  hands  of  Church 
officers.”  What  the  Quakers  and  Baptists  might 
have  to  say  to  your  catholic  practice  I will  not 
undertake  to  determine.  And  whether  in  “mis- 
sionary” enterprise  and  the  circulation  of  God’s 
word  you  find  yourselves  in  brotherly  unity  with 
the  Methodists,  I need  not  inform  the  public.  But 
I will  say  that  the  professions  of  your  last  letter, 
of  catholic^affection  and  practice,  are  strangely 
illustrated  by  the  charge  brought  against  you  by 
60,000  of  your  Presbyterian  brethren,  that  in 
Anno  Domini,  1837,  you  by  an  act  of  discipline 
cut  them  off  from  your  Church,  because  they  ad- 
hered  to  a “plan  of  union  between  Presbyterians 
and  Congregationalists”  for  the  work  of  the  Gospel; 
or  rather  because,  as  Church  members,  they  were 
embraced  in  a system  which  grew  out  of  this 
union. 

Into  the  merits  of  this  charge  I do  not  enter — 
for  I do  not  make  the  charge — but  may  it  not  be 
well  for  you  to  remember  that  while  you  are 
bringing  accusations  against  me  for  “exclusive- 
ness” and  “uncharitableness,”  and  are  ringing  all 
possible  changes  upon  the  word  ^-unchurch”  60,- 
000  of  your  laymen  and  500  of  your  clergy  are 
of  your  clergy  are  hurling  an  accusation  against 
you  ? They  employ  the  stronger  word  “ excom- 
municate.” Does  not  this  tend  to  show  that 
whatever  may  be  your  mercy  toward  Quakers 
and  others,  this  mercy  has  not  been  extended  to 
these  your  brethren  ? You  “ excommunicated*' 
them — without  citation,  and  without  a trial— -not 


on  the  ground  of  apostacy  from  the  essential 
faith,  but  on  the  pretension  that  the  “ plan  of  un- 
ion of  the  Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists” 
was  unconstitutional,  irregular  and  unnatural. — 
You  “excommunicated”  them  all.  This,  I be- 
lieve, is  their  charge  against  your  Church.* 

The  facts  and  principles  advanced  in  your  last 
letter,  I think,  have  been  shown  to  be  inconsist- 
ent  with  your  standards.  But  you  will  say  no — 
and  refer  again  to  book  I,  chapter  I,  of  the  Form 
of  Government : — “ Tliey  also  believe  that  there 
are  truths  and  forms  with  respect  to  which  men 
of  good  characters  and  principles  differ.  And  in 
all  these  they  think  it  the  duty  both  of  private 
Christians  and  Societies  to  exercise  mutual  for- 
bearance toward  each  other.”  Who  can  doubt 
the  truth  of  this  position,  or  dissent  from  it? 
There  are  many  ‘ truths’  and  many  ‘ forms,’  as 
to  which  we  differ,  that  I should  think  it  a waste 
of  time  to  dispute  about.  But  the  question  is, 
whether  among  these  ‘ truths  and  forms  ’ the 
standards  and  doctors  of  your  Church  mean  to 
include  the  doctrine  in  question  between  us, 
namely,  that  of  a divinely  commissioned  minis- 
try. If  they  do  not,  your  quotation  does  not  hold 
good  for  the  purpose  for  which  you  cited  it — and 
that  they  do  not,  I think  I have  sufficiently  shown. 
And  surely  you  yourself  do  not  set  so  lightly  by 
the  ministry  of  the  word  as  to  regard  the  ques- 
tion between  yourselves  and  the  Friends,  and  the 
Congregationalists,  as  only  a question  of  form. 

If  you  do,  I am  confident  that  the  most  learned 
and  eminent  of  your  brethren  vnll  not  coincide 
with  you.  Did  I regard  the  discussion  between  us 
as  involving  only  matters  of  form, I would  instant- 
ly drop  my  pen,  destroy  what  I have  written,  and 
retire  from  the  field,  conceding  to  you  the  victo- 
ry.  But  it  is  very  far  from  being,  in  my  view,  a 
question  of  “ form”  or  a dispute  about  “externals.” 
It  involves  a principle  of  the  deepest  importance 
— a principle  which  in  my  view  has  brought 
down  to  me,  from  my  blessed  Saviour,  that  cove- 
nant of  mercy  in  which  I place  my  hope  of  sal- 
vation, and  which  is  forever  to  protect  this  cove- 
nant and  convey  it  to  all  the  lost  and  perishing 
sons  of  men — not  relaxing  its  watch  and  ward 
over  it  till  the  Church  militant  on  earth  shall  be- 
come the  Church  triumphant  in  Heaven.  But 
even  if  it  were  a matter  of  mere  form,  if  God  has 
ordered  and  appointed  it,  how  dare  we  say  that  it 
is  not  indispensable  ? 

It  may  seem  to  you  ungracious  in  me  to  adopt 
the  line  of  argument  to  which  this  letter  has 
been  devoted,  but  I plead  as  my  apology  that  I 
have  been  constrained  to  do  it  in  self  defence,  for 
so  far  as  as  the  doctrine  goes,  of  the  necessity  for 
a divinely  appointed  ministry,  desiving  its  autho- 
rity from  Christ,  by  external  ordination  by  other 
ministers,  I am  a Presbyterian,  in  the  sense 
which  I attach  to  your  standards.  If  you  cannot 
come  and  stand  with  me  on  this  ground,  and 
there  with  me  try  our  strength  whether  I must 
remain  with  you  or  you  be  compelled  to  go  on- 
ward with  me,  I shall  he  forced  to  leave  you  in 
the  latitudinarian  region  of  Congregationalism 
till  some  other  opponent  from  the  Presbyterian 

* A Review  of  the  leading  measures  of  tlie  General  As- 
sembly of  1837.  Cvamember  of  the  New-York  bar. 

York  ; John  S.  Taylor,  1838.  The  American  Biblical  Re- 
pository. Vol.  Xll.  page  219.  State  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  page  221.  Whatever  may  be  ultimately  decided  to  be 
the  legal  rights  of  the  parties,  the  Church  is  in  fact  divided. 


29 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


ranks  presents  himself  to  break  a lance  with  you ; 
or  in  other  words  I shall  consider  this  point  as 
sufficiently  established,  and  in  my  future  letters 
shall  take  it  for  granted,  without  farther  argu- 
ment. 

Now,  in  a few  words,  let  me  say,  in  conclu- 
sion, that  it  may  be  distinctly  marked,  that  your 
own  standards  plainly  and  unequivocally  set 
forth — 

I.  That  the  ministry  is  given  to  the  Church  by 
the  self-same  authority  which  gives  to  it  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  namely,  Christ’s  authority.  As 
Christ’s  authority  must  be  binding  in  one  case  as 
absolutely  as  it  is  in  the  other,  it  follows  of  course 
that  the  Presbyterian  Church  holds  a divinely 
appointed  ministry  to  be  essential  to  the  being  of 
a Church. 

II.  That  tliis  divine  appointment  is  given  in 
an  external  commission,  through  ordination  by 
other  ordained  ministers. 

Now  it  is  for  you  to  say  how  the  ordaining 
ministers  are  invested  with  Christ’s  authority  to 
ordain.  Observe,  the  question  is  not  concerning 
the  internal  call  and  qualifications  of  the  candid, 
ate  for  ordination — but  concerning  the  qualifica- 
tions of  his  ordainers  to  give  him  his  outward 
call.  The  question  is,  not  whether  he  hold  the 
faith  of  Christ,  but  whether  his  ordainers  have 
authority  to  give  him  the  commission  of  Christ — 
so  that  the  scriptural  rule  may  be  obeyed  which 
is  referred  to  by  yourselves  as  bearing  upon  ex- 
ternal  ordination — “ No  man  taketh  this  honor 
unto  himself,  but  he  that  was  called  of  God,  as 
was  Aaron.” 

Do  you  or  do  you  not  believe  that  you  can, 
consistently  with  your  standards,  with  the  teach- 
ings of  your  accredited  ministers,  and  the  most 
eminent  living  doctors  of  your  Church,  affirm 
that  a minister  can  be  lawfully  commissioned 
otherwise  than  by  external  ordination  hy  other 
ministers,  who  have  themselves  been  externally 
ordained  ? 

I am,  liev.  and  Dear  Sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

JONATHAN  M WAIN  WRIGHT. 
iloNPAY,  Jan.  22d. 

LETTER  XIV. 

REV.  DR.  POTTS  TO  REV.  DR.  WAINWRIGHT  : 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir  : — Were  I disposed,  I 
might  easily  show  that  from  the  very  commence- 
ment of  this  discussion,  my  opponent  has  been 
busily  employed  in  endeavoring  to  shift  the  ground 
of  it,  and  to  make  an  issue  altogether  different 
from  that  which  presents  itself  to  every  unbiassed 
mind  as  the  true  one.  I will  not  call  the  various 
movements,  which  he  has  made,  evasive,  cap- 
tious or  ‘ imgracious,’  but  will  leave  the  reader  to 
judge  for  himself,  after  a review  of  them.  At  the 
New  England  Dinner,  under  very  extraordinary 
circumstances,  you  volunteer  to  maintain,  upon 
a ‘ proper  occasion,’  that  ‘ there  can  be  no  Church 
without  a Prelate,’  thus  unchurching  the  great 
mass  of  Protestant  Christendom.  The  ‘ proper 
occasion’  is  offered  to  you,  by  one  who  feels  that 
his  character  and  usefulness  are  publicly  assailed 
by  the  above  proposition.  Instead  of  standing 
upon  any  question  of  mere  technicalities,  and  con- 
testing  the  points  ‘ who  is  the  challenger,’  and 
* who  shall  commence  the  discussion,’  1 ask  from 
Dr.  W.  such  a definition  of  his  terms  as  will  put 


I the  public  in  possession  of  his  meaning,  under  his 
own  hand  and  seal ; but  this  under  the  cover  of  a 
technicality,  is  indignantly  refused.  The  right 
to  make  this  demand,  though  so  obviously  just, 
is  also  waived  for  the  sake  of  reaching  the 
merits  of  the  question.  Again,  I jirocced  to^re- 
deem  my  pledge,  and  to  show  that  the  unchurch- 
ing  dogma,  so  offensively  advanced,  is  at  war 
with  the  spirit  and  the  letter  of  the  Word  of  God. 
My  first  argument  is  that  “ there  is  no  war- 
rant from  Scripture,  for  making  any  particular 
external  form  of  polity  a condition  of  that  Chris- 
tian fellowship  and  communion  with  God,  which 
are  distinguishing  duties  and  privileges  of  the 
Church  of  Christ.”  I give  some  proofs  of  this 
position,  (see  the  close  of  the  fifth  letter,)  and  call 
upon  Dr.  W.  to  furnish — if  he  can — evidence  to 
the  country.  The  only  reply  made  to  the  posi- 
tion is,  not  that  it  is  untrue,  but  that  I cannot  con. 
sistently  assume  it,  because  it  is  repugnant  to  the 
standards  of  the  body  to  which  I belong,  which 
standards,  with  all  the  adroitness  he  can  employ, 
my  opponent  strives  to  show  are  as  exclusive  and 
unchurching  as  his  own  dogma.  Thus  again  is 
an  attempt  made  to  evade  the  real  issue.  Al- 
though not  bound  to  make  any  reply  to  this,  I 
consent  to  go  out  of  my  way  to  show  that  both 
fact  and  theory  demonstrate  conclusively  that 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  neither  in  its  standards 
nor  in  its  practice,  gives  the  least  plausible  ground 
for  this  argumentum  ad  invidiam.  To  repeat 
what  was  said  upon  this  point  would  be  to  repeat 
the  whole  letter.  The  sum  of  the  argument  was 
briefly  this:  that  while — in  common  with  the 
Churches  upon  the  continent  of  Europe,  the  va- 
rious families  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  this 
country,  the  Congregational  Churches  of  New 
England,  the  Methodist  and  Baptist  and  other 
Churches  of  Christ — we  maintain  the  necessity  of 
a ministry,  and  an  Apostolical  ministry,  divinely 
derived  from  Christ,  in  some  way,  through  the 
Apostles  ; we  do  not  maintain  that  such  a minis- 
try, in  order  to  authenticate  its  title,  must,  of  ne- 
cessity, be  derived  through  an  unbroken  succes- 
sion of  individuals. 

Believing  that  I had  said  enough  upon  this 
point  to  satisfy  any  reasonable  mind  that  there 
is  nothing  inconsistent  wnth  the  principles  of  my 
own  communion  in  the  argument  which  I sub- 
mitted to  you  as  long  ago  as  the  16th  of  Janua- 
ry,  I awaited  your  answer.  But  W'hat  is  that 
answer?  Neither  more  nor  less  than  another 
evasion  of  the  real  question.  Instead  of  a manly 
grappling  with  the  true  issue,  your  last  commu- 
nication is  entirely  occupied  in  a repetition  of 
the  process  to  which  your  previous  letter  was  de- 
voted. 

Now  I ask,  and  many  a reader  has  asked, 
whether  this  does  not  seem  like  trifling  with  the 
subject,  and  whether  also,  it  docs  not  evidence 
an  unv/illingness  upon  your  part  to  approach 
the  real  merits  of  the  question.  You  arc 
quite  mistaken,  if  you  have  supposed  that  I am 
to  be  drawn  aside  bj^  an  expedient  so  often  adopt- 
ed in  controversy,  but  one  which,  in  this  case,  is 
sopalable  that  nobody  can  mistake  its  design. — 
It  is  enough  to  say,  that  upon  a proper  occasion, 
I will  hold  myself  ready  to  prove  that  all  the  quo- 
tations made  from  our  standards,  (one  of  which 
in  particular  is  sadly  misunderstood,  besides  be- 


30 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


ing:  imperfectly  given,)  present  not  a single  idea 
tliat  is  inconsistent  with  the  perfect  catholicity 
which  I claim  for  them.  And  farther,  as  respects 
the  facts  to  which  I have  appealed,  I am  fully 
prepared  to  ^rovc  how  entirely  you  have  misap- 
prehended and  misstated  the  actual  reiations  tliat 
subsist  between  us  and  the  various  bo  lies  of 
Christians,  and  especially  between  the  two 
branches  of  the  Presbyterian  family,  one  of  which 
you  represent  as  “excommunicating”  the  other. 
It  is  quite  enough  to  assure  the  reader  that  mei- 
tiier  of  these  bodies  so  understands  the  matter, 
and  that  at  the  present  moment  moment  their 
amicable  relations  illustrate  the  important  truth, 
that  there  may  be  sejyaration  without  schism, 
just  as  the  present  distracted  state  of  your  own 
denomination  illustrates  the  opposite  truth,  that 
there  may  be  schism  vjithout  separation. 

All  these  points,  I say,  are  capable  of  the  most 
satisfactory  adjustment,  but  this  is  not  the  place 
for  it.  For,  to  what  purpose,  unless  it  be  to  en- 
tangle the  question  before  us  with  irrelevant  mat- 
ters, weary  the  patience  of  the  reader,  and  avert 
the  dreadful  issue — is  all  this  hunting  through 
the  Presbyterian  formularies  ? What  even  if  you 
ean  prove,  with  the  clearness  of  demonstration, 
that  these  formularies  teach  doctrines  in  regard 
to  the  ministry  and  sacrament,  which  are  the 
same  or  akin  to  those  you  teach  ? What  if  you 
ean  convict  me  and  ail  the  Presbyterian  body  of 
the  most  palpable  inconsistency  with  the  princi- 
ples of  our  own  standards  ? 1 beg  leave  to  ask 

whether  this  would  refute  in  any  wuse  the  truth 
of  the  position  I have  taken  in  ray  fifth  letter.  I 
have  said  already  that  in  this  discussion  I stand 
upon  the  ground  common  to  all  who  acknowledge 
a ministry  and  ordinances.  The  question  as  to 
which  ol  the  forms  of  this  ministry  is  most  ac- 
cordant with  scripture  teaching,  and  best  fitted 
to  secure  the  purity,  efficiency,  frerdom  and  hap- 
piness of  the  Christian  Churcii,  is,  in  its  place,  an 
interesting  question  ; but,  I repeat,  it  is  not  the 
question  before  us.  The  question  wdiich  is  before 
us  is,  whether  amj  one  of  the  various  forms  of 
constituting  the  Church  of  Christ  is  essential  to 
the  very  existence  of  that  Church.  To 
this  questkm  I again  invite  your  attention, 
with  the  hope  that  you  will  see  that  my  con- 
sistehey  or  inconsistency  has  really  nothing 
whatever  to  do  with  its  settlement.  As 
to  the  meaning  of  my  own  standards,  I have 
no  doubt  that  our  readers  will  at  once  appreciate 
the  justice  of  my  claim  to  be  considered  as  sound 
an  interpreter  of  them  as  you  can  possibly  be. — 
Besides  which,  did  I need  any  farther  argument 
to  demonstrate  that  they  do  not  take  the  arrogant 
ground  of  unchurching  you  or  others  who  do  not 
receive  them,  I find  that  argument  in  the  ac- 
knowledged, the  notorious  fact  that  our  practice 
is  just  what  I described  it,  in  my  last  letter.  It 
is  universally  known  that  we  do  most  cheerfully 
and  in  the  emphatic  language  of  facts,  acknow- 
ledge the  ministry  and  ordinances  of  other  Chris- 
tian  Churches.  I ask  Mdiether  our  practice  be 
not  the  best  exponent  of  our  principles,  and  wheth- 
er  that  practice  is  not  conclusive  that,  (to  use  the 
language  of  our  standards)  “ we  embrace  in  the 
spirit  of  charity  those  Christians  who  differ  from 
us  in  opinion  or  in  practice,”  upon  tlie  subject  of 
the  precise  forms  of  Churoh  order. 


I might  go  through  the  whole  series  of  your 
quotations,  and  show  conclusively  that  they  teach 
no  more  than  is  believed  and  admitted  by  all  the 
denominations  of  Christians  who  believe  at  all  in 
the  propriety  and  necessity  of  the  ministry  and 
ordinances  of  the  Gospel.  In  this  respect  the 
denominations  I have  named  stand  upon  common 
ground.  They  hold  a ministry,  an  Apostolical 
ministry,  and  a divinely-appointed  ministry. — 
But  the  fact  of  its  being  Apostolical  and  divinely- 
appointed  is  not,  as  I have  already  showm,  made 
to  depend  upon  the  fact  that  it  has  come  down  to 
them  in  a regular,  unbroken  series  of  individuals, 
but  upon  the  fact  that  it  is  substantially  conformed 
to  Apostolic  practice,  and  that  it  is  imbued  with 
the  Apostolic  spirit.  The  call  to  it  consists,  pri- 
marily, in  the  possession  of  a sincere  desire  to  ad- 
vance the  cause  of  evangelic  truth  and  righteous- 
ness; secondly,  in  the  possession  of  the  requisite 
intellectual  gifts  and  qualifications  for  this  pur- 
pose ; and  thirdly,  in  the  voice  of  the  people,  invit- 
ing the  individual  to  exercise  those  qualifications 
in  their  behalf.  Ordination  is ‘the  public  recog- 
nition of  such  an  individual  as  the  possessor  of 
such  a call,  and  does  not  invest  him  with  any 
sacramental  and  mysterious  virtues  which  he  did 
not  before  possess.  Every  denomination,  for  the 
simple  purpose  of  securing  order,  and  preventing 
the  intrusion  among  them  of  persons  who  give  no 
proof  of  possessing  such  a call  as  the  one  just  des- 
cribed, has  made  its  own  arrangements,  as  it  has 
an  undoubted  right  to  do,  provided  its  rules  be  in 
substantial  and  designed  conformity  with  what 
they  believe  to  be  the  piinciplcs  and  spirit  of  the 
Gospel.  This  is,  -in  their  sense  of  the  words, 
lawful  ordination,  concerning  which  you  say  so 
much.  If  the  reader  of  these  letters  wishes  to  see 
the  subject  fully  and  ably  treated,  I beg  leave  to 
recommend  to  his  perusal  the  work  of  the  present 
incumbent  of  the  Archiepiscopal  see  ofl)ublin, 
Dr.  Whately,  entitled  “ The  Kingdom  of  Christ.” 

Enough  now  to  repeat,  that  a succession  of 
individuals,  beginning  with  the  Apostles  and  de- 
scending to  the  present  times,  does  not,  of  itself, 
(as  you  affirm  and  as  you  are  bound  to  prove,) 
make  any  set  of  functionaries  an  Apostolical  or 
divinely  appointed  ministry,  for  reasons  I gave 
in  my  last,  and  to  which  you  have  not  replied. — 
Let  us  imagine  the  possibility  that  at  the  period 
when  the  Reformation  shook  the  throne  of  the 
great  spiritual  despotism  which  had  so  long  and 
wickedly  usurped  the  holy  name  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  not  one  of  the  prelates  or  priests  of  that 
vast  incorpation  of  anti-Christian  errors  had  come 
out  of  its  bosom.  Instead  of  a number  of  ordain- 
ed priests,  such  as  Luther,  let  us  suppose  some 
noble-hearted  layman  had  had  first  lighted  the 
flame  of  reform,  and  had  gathered  multitudes  of 
Christians  around  the  re-instated  Word  of  God, 
would  it  not  have  been  the  right  and  duty  of 
those  believers  to  organize  themselves  as  a 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  appoint  and  invest 
ministers  to  discharge  ministerial  duties  for  them? 
To  deny  this  would  be  to  say  that  that  there  is  no 
remedy  against  essential  error.  You  may  reply 
that  this  is  another  extreme  case,  and  that  it  should 
not  be  considered  as  establishing  a rule  ; but  it 
certainly  establishes  a principle,  and  that  princi- 
ple is  the  very  one  in  debate,  viz  : that  there  may 
be,  without  a succession  of  individuals,  a true, 


31 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


evangelic,  divinely  appointed  and  lawfully  ordain- 
cd  ministry  of  the  Gospel.  But  I must  refer  the 
reader  again  to  my  last  letter,  as  containing  my 
views  upon  this  point  more  at  large,  reserving 
farther  and  even  more  impressive  considerations 
for  the  time  when,  abandoning  all  hope  of  farther 
evading  the  real  issue,  you  shall  have  given  your 
answer  to  my  first  Scriptural  argument. 

Let  me  then,  state  the  true  issue,  once  more. 
You  have  asserted — not  merely  that  a ministry, 
and  a divinely  appointed  ministry,  is  essential  to 
the  Church,  but  that  it  must  be  & prelaticalmm- 
intry  ; so  that  without  'prelacy  there  is  no  Church, 
and  of  course  (as  1 have  shown  and  as  your  wri- 
ters affirm,)  a covenanted  spiritual  mercies  and 
no  warranted  hope  of  Heaven.  On  the  contrary 
I have  denied  that  any  one  particular  way  of  se- 
lecting and  designating  the  persons  who  are  to 
fill  the  office  is  essential  to  the  existence  of  the 
Church.  This  is  my  first  answer  to  the  un- 
churching dogma.  I pray  you  then  come  to  this 
point,  without  any  further  attempt  to  show  that 
you  understand  Presbyterianism  better  than  I do 
myself.  Come  to  it  boldly,  and  prove,  if 
you  can,  that  it  comports  with  the  spir- 
ituality of  the  Gospel  to  exalt,  as  you  do, 
a matter  of  external  order  into  an  essenttial. — 
Come  to  it,  and  explain  why,  if  prelacy  be  a vital 
element  in  the  Church  of  God,  there  has.notbeen 
a uniformly  divine  and  practical  testimony  given 
to  it  exclusively  ; so  that  none  should  be  left  in 
doubt  that  the  blessing  of  God  rested  upon  your 
ministrations  only.  Come  to  the  point,  and  show 
(tor  you  are  bound  to  do  so)  that  prelacy  has  in- 
variably  proved  itself  to  be  the  only  channel  of 
spiritual  benefits  to  mankind  ; that  it  alone  has 
preserved  the  truth,  and  preached  the  truth,  and 
exemplified  the  truth  in  the  lives  of  its  adherents ; 
that  it  has  promoted  the  peace  and  unity  and  pu- 
rity of  Christendom,  so  infinitely  beyond  any 
other  system  from  which  it  has  been  discarded  as 
to  demonstrate,  not  only  that  it  is  right,  but  es- 
sential. In  a word,  come  to  the  point,  and  prove 
that,  like  Gideon’s  fleece,  the  dews  of  the  grace 
of  Heaven  have  fallen  only  upon  prelatical  Rome, 
preiatical  Austria,  prelatical  Russia,  prelatical 
England  and  Amciica,  while  th?  rest  of  Christen, 
clom  is  perishing  in  drought. 

Prove  these  things,  and  your  claims  are  estab- 
lished. We  will  then  no  longer  question  the  mo- 
desty of  your  monopoly  of  the  name  and  rights  of 
the  Christian  Church.  You  may  then  call  your 
comparatively  contracted  denomination  I'he 
Church,  and  yourself,  par  excellence,  Church. 
MF.N.  Nay,  a prelate  may  propose,  (as  I under- 
stand  one  has  actually  done,)  to  drop  the  words 
‘ Protestant  Episcopal  ’ from  your  style  and  title, 
and  you  may  publish  a list  of  your  prelates  in  the 
* Diocescsof  the  Church  of  the  United  States.’* 
In  a word,  prove  that  ‘ there  can  be  a Church 
without  a prelate,’  and  I pledge  myself  that  we  will 
one  and  all  bring — what  one  of  your  number  has 
called — our  forged  commissions,  and  lay  them  at 
your  feet. 

But  until  then  be  assured  that  your  claims  will 
l>e  none  the  more  readily  conceded  because  they 
are  loudly  asserted  ; on  the  contrary,  every  open 
assault,  like  that  which  originated  this  discussion. 


, * Charch  Alcaanac  for  1844,  published  by  the  Ei 

copdl  Tract  bgciety,  Presideol.Rifcht  Kev.  B.  U.  Oadei^j 


will  be  met  with  promptness  and  repelled.  If 
your  hands  are  found  to  be  against  every  man,  do 
not  wonder  that  every  man’s  hand  will  be  against 
you.  Self-respect  and  the  desire  to  maintain  an 
unimpeached  character  as  the  ba§is  of  our  use^ 
fulness,  enjoin  the  duty  of  self-defence. 

iiespecefuliy,  your  obedient  servent, 

GEORGE  POTTS. 

LETFER  XV. 

REV.  DR.  WAINWRIGHT  TO  REV.  DK.  POTTS. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir — I am  constrained  to  call 
the  attention  of  our  readers  particularly  to  the 
conclusion  of  my  last  letter,  which  is  as  follows : 
“ Do  you  or  do  you  not  believe  that  you  can,  con- 
sistently with  your  standards,  with  the  teachings 
of  your  accredited  writers,  and  the  most  eminent 
living  doctors  of  your  Church,  affirm  that  a min- 
ist(!r  can  be  lawfully  commissioned  otherwise 
than  by  external  ordination  by  other  ministers, 
who  have  themselves  been  externally  ordainedV* 

I had  little  expectation  that  you  would  answer 
the  foregoing  interrogatory,  for  I knew,  and 
doubtless  our  readers  perceived,  that  any  answer 
true  to  its  point  would  involve  you  in  serious  dif- 
ficulty. Should  you  answer  in  the  affirmative,  you 
must  abandon  the  principles  of  yourown  Church. 
Should  you  answer  in  the  negative,  5'ou  must 
abandon  your  own  proposition,  viz.  “ that  there 
IS  no  warrant  from  Scripture  for  making  any  par- 
ticular external  form  of  polity  a condition  of  that 
Christian  fellow'ship  and  communion  with  God 
which  are  the  distinguishing  duties  and  privileges 
of  the  Church  of  Christ.” 

You  therefore  did  not  find  it  expedient  to  an- 
swer the  question — but  instead  of  doing  so  ran 
off  into  various  disquisitions,  interspersed  with 
your  accustomed  vague  charges  against  me— de- 
nunciations of  my  Church — historical  sketches 
of  the  rise  and  progress  of  the  present  controver- 
sy— assertions  about  unduly  exalting  forms,  &c. 
The  public,  I trust,  will  not  be  misled.  They 
have  seen  the  force  of  the  argument  ffom  your 
standards.  They  have  seen  the  point  of  my  ia- 
terrogatorj^  and  its  direct  bearing  as  an  argv~ 
mentum  ad  hominem  upon  your  proposition. — 
They  know  why  you  did  not  answer  it,  and  they 
will  judge  between  us  whether  your  most  adven- 
turous assertion,  that  I had  in  my  last  letter  en- 
deavor to  evade  your  argument,  is  w^ell  founded 
or  not. 

When  you  volunteered  in  this  controversy  you 
took  your  ground  against  me  as  being  an  Episco- 
palian. I,  on  the  other  hand,  accepted  your  chal- 
lenge as  from  a Presbyterian.  I had  a right  to 
suppose,  therefore,  that  we  should  each  be  true  to 
our  own  standards,  and  carry  on  our  controversy 
under  their  sacred  and  binding  authority.  I had 
pledged  conformity  to  mine,  in  the  same  spirit  as 
I do  not  doubt  you  did  to  yours  when  you  gave 
an  affirmative  reply  to  the  question,  ‘‘  Do  you 
sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the  confession 
of  faith  of  this  Church,  as  containing  the  sys- 
tem of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.'^ 
Form  of  Gov.  of  the  Pres.  CUk.  Chap.  XV.  Sec. 
XII. 

When  therefore  in  your  fifth  letter  you  ad . 
vanced  your  first  argument  in  support  of  the  af- 
firmative proposition,  I met  it  fairly  and  directly. 
My  course  of  argument  was  this — (the  public,  I 


32 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


trust,  will  understand  it  and  feel  its  weight,  if  you 
do  not) — I showed  that  the  Presbyterian  Church 
did  “ make  a particular  external  form  of  polity  a 
condition  of  that  Christian  fellowship,”  &c.  I 
quoted  the  standards  of  that  Church — I sustained 
their  doctripe  by  references  'to  scripture  and  by 
comment.  I adopted  this  doctrine,  as  far  it  goes, 
and  assumed  it  as  my  own.  To  all  this  you  of- 
fer not  a single  refutation,  nor  any  thing  that  to 
my  apprehension  approaches  to  one. 

You  say  “ that  upon  a proper  occasion  you  v^^ill 
hold  yourself  ready  to  prove,”  &c.  You  say 
what  you  could  do,  what  you  might  do,  and  what 
on  some  future  occasion  perhaps  you  will  do,  to 
show  that  “ Presbyterian  formularies  teach  no 
more  than  is  believed  and  admitted  by  all  the  de- 
nominations of  Christians  who  believe  at  all  in 
the  propriety  and  necessity  of  the  ministry  and 
ordinances  of  the  gospel.”  But  you  have  not 
done  this,  or  attempted  to  do  it,  and  permit  me  to 
add,  with  all  due  respeet,  my  firm  conviction  is 
that  you  cannot  do  it.  Your  standards,  at  any 
rate,  do  teach  more  upon  the  subject  of  the  minis- 
try than  is  held  by  Friends,  Congregationalists  or 
Baptists ; and  although  you  more  than  once  sug- 
gest  to  our  readers  that  you  must  be  abetter  judge 
of  the  meaning  of  your  formularies  than  I am, 
(and  although  this  may  have  a certain  effect  with 
persons  for  whom  I do  not  write,)  I am  confident 
that  the  intelligent  and  eandid  of  your  own  com- 
munion will  say  that  when  I appeal  from  you  to 
your  own  accredited  doctors  in  regard  to  the 
meaning  of  your  standards,  the  appeal  deserves  to 
be  tried. 

Now  here  I must  solicit  your  special  attention 
and  the  reader’s  patience,  for  the  question  pre- 
senting itself  is  of  the  utmost  importance.  It 
lies  at  the  foundation  of  all  this  controversy.  If 
the  principle  I contend  for  is  not  sustained  by  the 
most  cogent  and  satisfactory  arguments  I need  go 
no  farther.  If  a divinely  appointed  Apostolical 
ministry — I mean  too  in  the  sense  of  the  Epis- 
copal and  Presbyterian  standards,  and  I affirm 
that  on  this  point  they  agree — is  not  essential 
to  the  Church — then  Prelates  are  not  essen- 
tial — then  the  question  of  Apostolical  succession 
is  as  unimportant  as  can  well  be  imagined.  There- 
fore it  is  that  I press  this  point  home  upon  you, 
and  demand  a categorical  answer  to  the  question 
which  concluded  my  last  letter,  and  which  I re- 
peat  in  this.  If  you  can  answer  in  the  affirmative 
and  sustain  your  affirmation,  or  in  other  words  if 
you  can  support  your  first  argument,  that  “ there  is 
no  warrant  from  scripture  for  making  any  particu- 
lar external  form  of  polity  a condition”  &c.,  then 
you  knock  down  your  own  ecclesiastical  mansion 
about  yom-  ears,  and  with  the  same  blow  you  de- 
molish the  Divine  right  of  Episcopacy.  But  you 
have  not  done  this,  and  I repeat  my  firm  belief 
that  you  cannot  do  it. 

Now  we  must  have  a clear  understanding  upon 
this  point,  and  the  public  must  have  a clear  un- 
derstanding upon  it.  And  it  is  for  want  of  this 
clear  understanding  that  the  progress  of  our  ar- 
gument has  been  retarded.  And  as  you  intimate 
that  the  delay  has  been  owing  to  me,  I am  com- 
pelled to  retort  upon  you,  and  affirm  that  this  un- 
satisfactory slow  dragging  of  the  argument  is 
wholly  chargeable  upon  you.  Answer  affirma- 
tively or  negatively  to  the  question  of  my  last  let- 


ter, repeated  in  this.  If  affirmatively,  then  you 
are  a Congregationalist  and  I leave  you  in  the 
hands  of  the  Presbyterians,  to  battle  with  them 
the  question  of  a divinely  appointed  ministry.  If 
negatively  then  your  first  argument  is  demolished 
and  you  must  build  up  another. 

But  you  may  say — you  do  say — that  you  “ hold 
to  a ministry,  an  Apostolical  ministry,  a divinely 
I appointed  ministry.”  How  do  you  hold  to  this 
j position  ? That  is  the  question.  You  say,  be- 
i cause  “ it  depends  upon  the  fact  that  it  is  sub- 
j stantially  conformed  to  Apostolical  practice,  and 
i that  it  is  imbued  wdth  the  Apostolical  spirit.” 
j And  you  go  on — “ The  call  to  it  consists  prima- 
' rily  in  the  possession  of  a sincere  desire  to  ad- 
I vance  the  cause  of  evangelic  truth  ahd  right- 
eousness ; secondly  in  the  possession  of  the  re- 
j quisite  intellectual  gifts  and  qualifications  for  this 
i purpose ; and  thirdly  in  the  voice  of  the  people 
! inviting  the  individual  to  exercise  those  qual- 
‘ ifications  in  their  behalf.  Ordination  is  the  pub- 
' lie  recognition  of  such  an  individual  as  the  pos- 
I sessor  of  such  a call,  and  does  not  invest  him  with 
any  sacramental  and  mysterious  virtues  which  he 
did  not  before  possess.”  Is  it  possible  that  in  your 
estimation  this  is  the  whole  force,  intention  and 
efficacy  of  ordination  ? The  Presbyterian  stand- 
j ards  say  that  it  is  a calling  of  God,  as  Aaron  was 
1 called  of  God.  No,  says  Dr.  Potts,  it  is  simply 
I “ a public  recognition.”  A newspaper  paragraph 
, duly  signed  by  the  proper  person  would  be  “ a 
' public  recognition.”  Would  this  be  an  ordina- 
tion ? A hand-bill  at  the  corner  of  the  streets  is  in 
j like  manner  “ a public  recognition.”  In  what 
j heresy  that  ever  cursed  the  earth  have  not  the 
I leaders  been  favored  with  “a  public  recognition” 

1 by  their  adherents  ? And  is  this  equivalent  to  or. 
j dination,  to  the  “ laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
! Presbytery  ? ” 

j I affirm  and  you  cannot  deny  that  the  Presby- 
j terian  standards  teach  that  neither  ‘ the  inward 
j call,’  ‘ nor  intellectual  gifts  and  qualifications’ 

; (this  is  the  Quaker  doctrine)  nor  ‘ the  voice  of  the 
i people  inviting  to  exercise  their  qualifications,  in 
' their  behalf,’  (this  is  the  Congregational  doctrine,) 
constitute  a gospel  minister  ; and  that  ordination 
is  not  merely  ‘ the  public  recognition  of  such  an 
individual  as  the  possessor  of  such  a call,’  (this 
is  the  whole  import  of  Congregational  ordination,) 
but  that  ordination  does  invest  the  individual 
with  an  authority  which  he  did  not  before  po.ssess, 
and  which  he  could  possess  solely  and  exclusively 
by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  other  ministers, 
who  have  themselves  been  externally  ordained. — 
(And  this  is  the  Presbyterian  doctrine.) 

That  this  is  the  Presbyterian  doctrine  I will 
not  attempt  to  strengthen  the  proof  by  quoting 
more  largely  from  your  standards,  than  I have 
done  in  my  last  letter,  lest  I should  fatigue  onr 
readers,  but  I will  refer  to  what  may  be  of  some 
interest  to  them,  and  what  will  greatly  fortify  my 
position.  I will  refer  to  the  doings  of  the  Gen- 
eral  Assembly  held  in  June  last. 

This  very  point  now  between  us  then  came 
up,  and  was  fully  discussed,  on  the  question  of 
the  rights  of  ruling  elders  to  impose  hands  at  or- 
dination. On  one  side  it  was  argued  that  they 
had  the  right,  on  the  ground  that  “ they  were 
members  of  the  Presbytery,  and  ordination  was 
to  be  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Pres- 


* Ji  Church  without  n Bishop. 


m 


Nfc*ytery.”  On  the  other  side  it  was  contended  that 
they  had  no  such  authority,  inasmuch  as  “ min- 
'isterial  acts  could  be  performed  only  by  minis- 
ters.’-' Ministers  were  the  representatives  of 
the  head  of  the  'Church,  tire  elders  the  representa- 
tives of  tire  body.”  “ The  ministers  are  Christ’s 
representatives,  the  eiders  the  Church’s.  We 
have  here  then  tire  two  elements  of  office — 'election 
by  the  .people  through  their  represcntati-vx3S  the 
eiders,  and  ordination  by  Christ  through  his  rep- 
resentatives or  nrinisters.'”  “And  what  power 
does  the  Church  give  him  (i.  e.  the  ruling  cider)  ? 
Not  the  power  of  ordination,  for  the  Church  her- 
self, aside  from  the  ministry,  does  not  possess 
that  power.  Independents  sometimes  ordain 
without  preaching  elders,  but  that  is  not  Presby- 
terianism. And  here  is  the  very  point  in  ques- 
tion. The  Church  has  power  to  deliberate,  ad- 
vise and  decide,  but  not  to  impose  hands.  This 
significant  act  of  very  ancient  origin  is  an  em- 
blem ef  the  transfer  of  ministeriai  power.  But 
the  Church  is  net  the  depository  of  this  power, 
and  therefore  she  cannot  delegate  it  to  her  repre- 
sentative.” These  were  some  of  the  arguments 
used,  and  sound  arguments  they  were,  and  they 
prevailed,  and  they  weresustained  by  your  Gene- 
ral Assembly,  by  the  following  overwhelming 
votei 


Yeas.-...- IJl  Excused 2 

Nays 8 Absent 16 

Total 159» 


Whether  IJr.  Potts  was  a member  of  this  As- 
£5embly,  or  whether  he  was  among  the  yeas,  nays, 
excused,  or  absent,  I am  not  informed — nor  is  it 
material  to  know.  Such  was  the  decision  of  his 
Church,  and  the  decision  was  in  conformity  with 
its  standards,  and  its  standards  and  this  decision 
recogniize  a principle  which  I believe  to  be  scrip, 
tural,  and  therefore  accord  with  it,  and  I advance 
?t  as  containing  my  negative,  and  the  reasons  for 
my  negative,  to  his  first  argument, “there  is  no  war- 
rant from  the  word  of  God  for  making  any  parti- 
cular external  form  of  polity  a condition, ”&c.  And 
I submit  to  the]>ublie  whether  I have  not,  (by the 
aid  of  his  own  standards,  I acknowledge,)  over- 
thrown  his  argument.  If  not,  let  him  show  upon 
what  foundation  it  yet  rests.  If  upon  any  that  is 
valid  and  firm,  then,  as  I have  before  said,  there 
rs  no  need  of  any  farther  discussion — for  if  an 
Apostolical,  divinely  appointed  ministry,  in  the 
sense  I have  contended  for  it,  is  not  essential  to 
the  Church,  Presbyterian  ordination  is  not  essen- 
tial, and  a fortiori  Episcopal  ordination  is  not 
essential,  and  to  argue  for  Apostolical  succession 
would  be  worse  than  vain. 

In  view  of  the  above  argument  let  the  puiriic 
■decide  who  has  embarrassed  this  discussion  by 
confused  views,  contradictory  statements,  iucon- 
elusive  argunients,  and  declamation  having  no 
real  bearing  upon  the  question  at  issue.  Do  not 
take  this  remark,  I pray  you,  in  an  offensive  light. 
I should  deprecate  offering  it  in  this  light-  I pro 
sent  it  in  self-defence — to  s’lield  myself  from  tiie 
accusation  v;hich  you  have  repeatedly  made,  and 
which  you  seem  anxious  to  impress  upon  the 
public,  that  I am  trying  ^‘to  avert  the  dreaded 
Issue.” 

Now,  sir,  in  concluding  this  part  of  my  letter, 
let  me  sum  up  and  ask  the  public  to  judge  be- 
tween  us. 

* New-York  OtseiTer,  3,  t6i3. 

C 


Your  first  argument,  in  proof  that  my  assertion, 
concerning  Episcopacy  is  unscriptural^  is  con- 
tained in  the  following  allegation  : “ There  is  no 
warrant  from  scripture  for  making  any  particular 
external  form  of  polity  a condition,”  &c.  Wliich 
allegation,  if  it  be  at  all  to  the  point,  is  the  same 
as  alleging  tiiat  tliere  Is  no  warrant  from  scrip- 
ture for  making  any  particular  form  of  polity  es- 
sential to  the  being  of  a Church. 

I maintain  that  I met  it  directly  and  fairly. — 
You,  indeed,  witli  admirable  appreciation  of  our 
logical  relations  to  each  other,  desired  me  to  dis- 
prove  your  allegation.  Of  course!  preferred  that 
you  should  prove  it  first.  It  was  enough  for  me 
to  deny  it.  1 deny  it  stHl.  Will  you  prove  it  ? Or, 
will  you  answer  the  question  ! have  propounded  iu 
relation  to  ordination  ? 

You  have  manifested  great  sensitiveness 
throughout  our  correspondence  in  regard  to  what 
yuu  call  the  arrogance  of  'Episcopalians,  and  I 
have  been  particularly  surprised  at  the  concluding 
paragraph  of  your  last  letter.  You  speak  of  “ open 
assault, like  that  which  originated  this  discussion,” 
(I  deny  again  that  any  assault  of  mine  did  origi- 
nate this  discussion,  and  deny  it  in  the  sense  I 
have  sufficiently  explained,) — of  “ our  hands  be- 
ing against  every  man,”  and,  therefore,  in  the  spirit 
of  Christian  retaliation,  “ your  hands  are  to  be 
against  us” — of  “ self-respect” — and  an“  unim- 
peached  character^’  to  be  maintained.  These 
words  imply  grave  ciiarges.  Who  has  assaulted 
■you  ? Who  has  impeached  your  character  ? Who 
has  wounded  your  self-respect .?  Who  has  denied 
that  you  are  a Presbyterian  minister — the  popular 
pastor  of  a highly  respectable  congregation  ? Who 
has  denied  your  right  to  administer  the  affairs  of 
your  own  congregation  and  your  own  Church  in 
yourGv.7n  way  ? Wlio  has  interfered,  or  wished  to 
interfere,  with  your  liberty  in  Christ  to  worship  in 
your  own  way — to  preach  the  doctrines  you  be- 
lieve to  betrue — to  administer  the  sacraments  you 
believe  to  be  Christ’s  sacraments?  And  Irecausc 
v;e  choose  to  assert  and  maintain  our  liberty  in 
Christ  in  these  matters,  and  to  read  and  interpret 
God’s  word  according  to  tire  best  liglit  we  have, 
and  in  view  of  our  solemn  responsibilities  to  be 
judged  at  the  last  day  for  the  use  we  have  made 
of  this  word,  common  to  us  all,  are  we  to  be  accu- 
sed of  arrogance  and  undiaritableness,  and  to  have 
all  other  offensive  epithels  heaped  upon  us?  Per- 
mit me  to  s'dy  that  ail  this  excitement  on  y-our 
part  is  uncalled  for.  I maintain  a certain  doc- 
trine because  I believe  it  to  be  taught  in  God’s 
word.  If  you  can  convince  me,  aa  you  have  un- 
dertaken  to  do,  that  it  is  not  there  taught,  I will 
at  once  relinquish  it.  But  if  I maintain  it  with- 
out interfering,  ©r  wishing  to  interfere,  with  your 
civil,  social  or  religious  rights,  and  without  indul- 
ging the  language  of  denunciation,  (and  if  you 
will  point  out  to  me  any  such  language  that  I 
have  used,  an  any  occasion  lokaisoevcr,  I will  re- 
cal  it  and  apologize  for  it,)  you  liavc  no  cause  to 
feel  yourself  aggrieved. 

I have  now  to  say  a few  words  or  your  oft-re- 
pcated  charge  about  ‘ exclusiveness,’  ‘ unchurch- 
ing,’  ■&uc. 

I have  hitherto  been  contented  with  showing- 
from  your  standards  tliat,  however  just  in  itself 
this  charge  might  be,  it  cannot  with  propriety  be 
preferred  by  uny  Presbyterian  m nister  who  ad- 


34 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


hcres  to  his  own  scheme  of  doctrine.  I now, 
however,  go  farther — and  solemnly  deny  the 
charge,  I am  not  “ exclusive.”  I “ unchurch” 
no  man  in  the  sense  which  you  attach  to  these 
terms.  I consign  no  fellow-creature  to  those 
“ uncovenanted  mercies”  which,  according  to 
your  views  of  Christian  truth,  you  very  properly 
say  are  “ no  mercies  at  all.”  Herein  consists 
your  mistake,  and  I ask  our  readers  to  look  at  it 
closely. 

The  maxim  “ nulla  ecclesia  sine  episcopo  ” is 
an  ancient  maxim  of  the  Church  catholic,  and  it 
is  to  be  interpreted  and  understood  according  to 
the  great  principles  whereby  the  Church  repre- 
sents  upon  the  earth  the  Universal  Father’s  mer- 
cy toward  all  his  guilty  and  suffering  children. — 
But  you  have  withdrawn  it  from  its  home  and  its 
true  interpreter,  and  have  read  it  to  the  w^orld  and 
commented  on  it,  not  by  the  aid  of  catholic  char- 
ity and  truth,  but  in  the  light  of  the  narrow  sys- 
tem of  Geneva.  Your  views  of  the  “Church” 
and  of  the  “ covenant  ” and  of  God’s  mercy  to 
the  human  race  may  be  gathered  from  the  fol- 
lowing  dogmas  : 

Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  XXV.— The  catholic  or  univer- 
sal Church,  which  is  invisiOle,  consists  of  the  whole  number 
of  the  elect  that  have  been,  are,  or  shall  be  gathered  info  one 
under  Christ,  the  head  iheieof,  and  is  the  spouse,  the  body,  t.he 
fulness  of  him  that  fillerh  all  in  all. 

Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  111.  Sec.  III.— By  the  decree  of 
God,  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory,  some  men  and  angels 
are  predestinated  unto  everlasting  life,  and  others  jiie  fore-or- 
dained to  everlasting  death. 

IV.  These  angels  and  men,  thus  predestinated  and  fore-or- 
dained, are  particularly  and  unchangeably  designed,  and  their 
number  is  .so  certain  and  definite  that  it  cannot  be  either  in- 
creased or  diminished. 

V.  Those  of  mankind  that  are  predestinated  unto  life, 
God,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  was  Ind,  ac- 
cording to  his  eternal  and  immutable  purpose,  and  the  se- 
cret counsel  and  good  plea,sure  of  his  will,  hatn  chosen  in 
Christ,  unto  everlasting  glory,  out  of  his  mere  free  grace  and 
love,  without  any  foresight  of  faith  or  good  v.'ojks,  or  iier.sa 
verance  in  either  of  them,  or  any  other  thing  in  the  creature, 
as  conditions,  or  causes  moving  him  thereunto,  ami  ail  to  the 
praise  of  his  glorious  grace. 

VI.  As  G»d  has  appointed  the  elect  unto  glory,  so  hath  he 
by  the  eternal  and  most  free  purpose  of  his  will,  fore-ordati.ed 
all  the  means  thereunto.  VVherelore  they  who  are  elected, 
being  fallen  in  Adam,  are  redeemed  by  Christ,  are  elfectually 
called  unto  faitli  in  Christ  by  his  snirit  working  in  due  sea- 
son; are  justified,  adopted,  sanctified,  and  lept-byliis  power 
through  faith  unto  salvation.  Neither  are  any  other  redeemed 
by  Christ,  effectually  called,  justified,  adopted,  sanctified, ana 
saved,  but  the  elect  only. 

VII.  The  rest  ol  mankind  God  was  pleased,  according  to 
the  unsearchable  counsel  of  his  own  will,  whereby  he  ex- 
tendeth  or  withholdelh  mercy  as  he  plsaseth,  for  the  glory  ol 
his  sovereign  power  over  his  creatures,  to  pass  by,  and  to  or- 
dain them  to  dishonor  and  wrath  for  their  sin,  to  the  piaise  of 
his  glorious  justice. 

Confession  of  Faith  Chap.  X. 

Section  1.  All  those  whom  Godhath  predestinated  unto  life, 
and  those  only,  he  is  pleased,  in  his  appointed  and  accepted 
time,  efltectuallv  to  call,  by  his  word  and  spirit,  out  of  lhat 
state  of  sin  and  death,  in  which  they  are  by  n tu.  e,  to  grace 
aud  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ,  enlightening  ilu'ir  minds, 
spiritually  and-avingly,  to  uiider''.tand  the  things  of  God,  tak- 
ing away  their  heart  of  stone,  and  giving  unto  them  an  heart 
of  flesh;  renewing  their  v/ills,  and  by  his  almigluy  powe.-  de- 
termining them  to, that  v;hich  is  good;  and  effectually  <'ran  ing 
thfcm  to  Jesus  Chiist,  vet  so  as  they  come  most  Ireely,  being 
made  willing  by  his  grace. 

'II.  This  effectual  call  is  of  God’s  free  -and  sp  c ill  grace, 
alone,  not  from  anv  thing  at  all  foie.seen  in  mm,  who  is  alto- 
eether  passive  therein,  until,  being  quickened  and  renewed  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  he  is  thereby  enabled  to  answer  this  call,  aud 
to  embrace  the  grace  offered  and  couveyed  in  it. 

HI.  Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  regenerated  and 
saved  by  Christ  through  the  Spirit,  who  workeih  when,  and 
where,  and  liow  he  pie  seth.  So  a’so  are  all  o'hei  elect  per 
sons,  who  are  incapable  of  being  outwardly  called  by  the 
ministry  of  tlie  Word. 

IV.  Others,  not  elected,  al. hough  they  may  be  called  by  the 
ministry  of  the  word,  and  may  have  .some  common  operations 
of  the  Spirit,  yet  they  never  truly  come  to  Ciirist,  and  there- 
fore cannot  be  saved ; much  le.ss  ca.i  men,  not  professing  the 
f-hristiau  religion,  be  saved  i i any  oti.er  way  whatsoever,  be 
they  never  so  ililigent  liame  their  lives  according  to  the 
light  of  Nature,  and  the  law  of  tint  rc-hgion  they  do  pr  ofess ; 
mid  to  assert  and  tn  liutaiu  tliat  they  may  is  very  pernicious, 
and  to  be  detested. 

in  the  light  of  such  a system  as  this  it  is  that 


you  have  undertaken  to  interpret  iny  maxim, 
and  have  lifted  your  hands  in  horror  at  its  im- 
port when  thun  interpreted. 

You  of  course  limit  the  “ Church  and  the  “ co- 
venant” and  the  possibility  of  salvation,  to  the 
“ elect,”  that  is,  to  that  specific  numher  of  adults 
and  infants  whom  God,  according  to  his  eternal 
purpose,  hath  predestinated  unto  life  and  hath 
chosen  in  Christ,  without  any  foresight  of faith  or 
good  works,  or  any  thing  in  the  creature  as  con. 
ditionsor  causes  moving  him  thereunto.  Conse- 
quently you  regard  my  dogma  as  with  awful  pre- 
sumption laying  its  hand  upon  the  Divine  decrees, 
defining  their  course,  designating  their  subjects 
among  the  children  of  men,  and  impiously  deter- 
mining lhat  every  community  without  a Bishop 
at  its  head  is  not  of  the  “ elect,”  but  consists 
only  of  vessels  of  wrath,  fitted  for  destruction. 

But  no,  sir,  this  maxim  “ no  Church  without 
a Bishop  ” is  not  yours — you  cannot  interpret  it. 
Its  birth  place  is  not  Geneva — its  borne  is  not 
there.  It  belongs  to  the  system  of  free  grace  and 
of  salvation  within  the  reach  of  all.  It  abides  in 
the  great  temple  »pf  him  who  died  for  all — the 
gates  of  which  are  open  continually  and  open  to 
every  man — to  which  no  man  is  admitted,  and 
from  which  no  man  is  excluded,  by  any  uncondi- 
tional decree  of  the  Almighty.  And  as  the  pa- 
rent, obeying  his  Savior’s  invitation,  is  carrying 
his  little  children  to  baptism,  he  is  not  tortured 
by  doubt  and  fear,  lest  after  all,  his  oflspring  not 
being  of  the  number  of  “ elect  infants,”  the  ordi- 
nance  may  be  in  vain,  and  his  affectionate  care 
for  their  Christian  nurture,  and  his  watchings  and 
prayers  and  tears,  be  returned  to  his  desolate  and 
despairing  heart  by  a resistless  and  unconditional 
decree,  recorded  in  the  clouds  and  darkness  above 
him.  He  knows,  and  is  sure,  that  in  the  laver  of 
regeneration  his  little  ones  arc  made  “members 
of  Christ,  children  of  God  and  inheritors  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.”  And  he  knows  also  that 
their  attainment  of  the  full  maturity  of  the  Chris- 
tian life,  or  their  failure  to  attain  it,  depends, 
through  the  grace  of  God,  not  in  appearance 
merely  but  really  and  truly,  upon  the  manner  in 
which  he  and  the}’-  sustain  their  responsibility  as 
free  moral  agents. 

A membership  of  the  visible  Church  is  ordina- 
rily necessary  to  salvation.  In  a Christian  land, 
however,  men  are  not  ordinarily  out  of  the  Church 
but  through  their  own  fault — and  for  this  they  are 
of  course  responsible  in  proportion  to  the  wilful- 
ness  of  the  fault.  If  in  Christian,  as  is  the  case 
in  heathen  lands,  many  should  be  out  of  the  Church 
not  through  any  fault  of  their  own,  we  know  of 
no  authority  given  to  man  to  pronounce  their 
condemnation.  V/c  do  not  believe  that  the  fact 
of  their  being  out  of  the  Church  is  a sign  that 
God  has  by  a secret  decree  “passed  them  by,” 
or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  appointed  them  unto 
perdition.  Wc  commend  them  in  faith  and  hope 
to  the  mercies,  in  our  view  the  all  embracing 
mercies,  of  our  Heavenly  Father. 

Were  it  true,  then,  that  wc  “unchurch”  all 
who  do  not  acknowledge  and  receive  the  organi- 
zation of  the  Churcli  as  we  believe  we  have  re- 
ceived it  from  Christ,  we  should  regard  those  on- 
ly as  in  a state  of  condemnation  wlio  reject  the 
truth  of  Christ  w'ilfully,  through  evil  dispositions 
— i.  e.  knowing  or  having  the  opportunities  of 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


35 


knowing  it  to  be  the  truth  of  Christ,  and  reject- 
ing  it  as  such.  While  unchurching  others  not 
thus  wilfully  rejecting  the  truth  w'e  should  not 
condemn — not  believing  the  being  out  of  the 
Church  to  be  a necessary  sign  of  perdition,  as  it 
is  in  the  system  of  Geneva.  We  do  not  “un- 
church” men,  hov/ever,  quite  so  recklessly  as  my 
opponent  seems  to  imagine.  We  “unchurch” no 
man — we  banish  no  man  from  our  communion, 
who  has  been  lawfully  baptised,  and  holds  the 
essential  faith  ; who  leads  a Godly  and  a Chris- 
tian life,  and  who  is  not,  wilfully  and  knowingly, 
a schismatic. 

It  is  true  that  we  believe  in  one  only  visible 
Church  of  Christ.  We  believe  that  it  is  un- 
changeably constituted  and  organized  by  Christ 
himself.  We  believe  that  it  will  continue  one  to 
the  end  of  the  world.  And  we  do  not  believe 
that  the  various  communities  around  us,  which 
have  sprung  up  at  different  times  within  the  last 
three  hundred  years,  and  which  continue  to  spring 
up  every  year,  calling  themselves  Churches,  are 
so  in  fact.  They  are  without  Christ’s  organiza- 
tion and  ministry.  Their  organization  and  min- 
istry are  recent — of  yesterday.  Whereas  Christ 
organized  his  Church  eighteen  hundred  years 
ago.  But  while  we  thus  deny  to  these  communi- 
ties in  the  aggregate  the  name  and  character  of 
Churches,  and  while  we  regard  them  as  in  a 
state  of  schism,  we  yet  believe,  so  far  as  the  indi- 
viduals  belonging  to  those  communities  are  con- 
cerned, that  the  gxiilt  of  schism  depends  upon 
the  circumstances  of  each  particular  case.  And 
we  do  not  decide  that  those  individual  members 
may  not,  by  virtue  of  their  baptism  and  their 
Christian  faith  and  virtue,  be  still  connected, 
though  in  imperfect  communion,  with  the  Church 
of  Christ. 

Though  in  their  corporate  capacity  we  refuse 
to  acknowledge  them  as  Churches,  and  we  deem 
them  not  lawfully  organized,  in  respect  to  indi- 
viduals, we  do  not  refuse  to  commune  with  them 
as  members  of  the  Church.  Were  your  temple 
of  worship  to  be  suddenly  destroyed  by  fire  on 
some  communion  day,  yourself  and  your  whole 
body  of  communicants  would  be  received,  I ven- 
ture to  say,  with  the  utmost  Christian  hospitality, 
in  any  Episcopal  Church  in  this  city,  or  in  the 
land,  and  would  be  welcomed  to  partake  with  us 
of  the  Holy  Communion.  Cease,  then,  I pray 
you,  attempting  to  bring  this  undeserved  odium 
upon  a whole  denomination  of  your  fellow  Chris- 
tians, and  bear  with  the  only  rebuke  I will  utter 
for  the  attempt — “ Who  art  thou  that  judgest 
another  man’s  servant  ? To  his  own  master  he 
standeth  or  falleth.” 

Now,  from  what  has  been  said  in  this  latter 
part  of  my  letter,  it  appears — 

I.  That  we  are  not  “exclusive”  in  your  sense 
of  the  word,  or  in  the  sense  in  which  your  scheme 
of  doctrine  makes  the  Church  exclusive. 

II.  That  to  “ unchurch”  men  is  not,  neces- 
sarily, as  it  is  according  to  your  system,  to  con- 
sign them  to  perdition. 

III.  That  while  we  deny  to  the  recently  organ- 
ized communities  around  us,  in  the  aggregate, 
the  name  and  character  of  Churches,  we  do  not 
deny  that  the  Christian  baptism  and  faith  of  the 
individuals  embraced  in  these  communities  may 


connect  them  though  in  imperfect  communion, 
with  the  one  visible  Church  of  Christ. 

IV.  That  all  your  various  charges  of  “ exclu- 
siveness,” “uncharitableness,”  “unchurching,” 
&LC.,  are  unfounded  and  unjust,  and  that  you  have 
been  led  into  this  injustice  by  your  attempt  to 
interpret  a maxim  of  the  Church  catholic,  eighteen 
hundred  years  old,  in  the  light  of  the  syattm  which 
was  fabricated  at  Geneva  three  hundred  years  ago. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  Kev.  and  dear  sir, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

JONA.  M.  WAINWRIGHT. 

30th  January^  1814. 


LETTER  XVI. 

REV.  DR.  POTTS  TO  REV.  DR.  WAINWRIGHT  : 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir : Our  readers,  no  doubt, 
have  shared  with  me  in  my  disappointment,  at 
not  finding  some  reference  to  Calvin  and  Servetus 
in  your  last  letter,  especially  as  you  trod  so  close- 
ly upon  this  favorite  topic,  and  as  it  has  quite  as 
powerful  a bearing  upon  the  point  of  exclusive 
High-Churchism,  as  the  topic  of  predestination 
and  election.  There  are  some  kinds  of  argumen- 
tation  which  are  quite  beyond  the  reach  of  a se- 
rious  reply ; they  move  the  gravest  people  to  in- 
dulge  in  a little  harmless  mirth.  When  we  con- 
sider how  admirably  inconsequent  they  are,  we 
find  it  much  more  difficult  to  keep  our  counte- 
nances than  to  keep  our  tempers.  Of  this  sort  is 
your  argument  in  favor  of  High-Church  exclu- 
siveness, drawn  from  the  obnoxious  doctrines  of 
predestination.  There  are  several  other  topics, 
equally  pertinent,  which  I beg  leave  to  suggest 
for  future  use,  that  may  serve  to  amuse,  if  not  to 
convince.  When  drawn  up,  in  syllogistic  form, 
they  are  very  striking.  One  I have  just  mention- 
ed : Calvin  burned  Servetus — therefore,  no  Pres- 
byterian can  say  a word  against  High-Chureh 
monopoly.  Or  this: — the  non-conformists  in  Eng- 
land were  round-heads,  who  sang  psalms  through 
their  noses — therefore,  no  Presbyterian  can  say  a 
word  against  being  unchurched.  Or  this : — the 
Puritans  of  New-England  always  burned  witches, 
always  persecuted  the  Quakers,  made  blue  laws, 
declared  that  the  whole  earth  belonged  to  the 
Saints,  &,c.  &c.  &c. — therefore,  no  Presbj^terian 
can  call  in  question  the  charity,  modesty  and  jus- 
tice of  the  unchurching  dogma. 

But  even  should  you  take  occasion  to  resort  to 
these  or  similar  specimens  of  logic,  they  will  not 
draw  me  aside  from  the  point  in  hand.  “ A time 
for  every  thing.”  They  are  just  as  germaine  to 
the  true  issue  as  the  question  of  Millerism  or  Mes- 
merism, upon  both  of  which  points,  perhaps,  your 
opponent  may  be,  for  all  you  know,  a fanatic. — 
Were  I a believer  even  in  the  theory  of  Lord  Mon- 
boddo,  according  to  which  mankind  were  origin- 
ally provided  with  those  caudal  appendages  vul- 
garly called  tails,  that  would  hardly  be  a pertinent 
reply  to  certain  arguments  I might  adduce  to 
prove  that  Prelacy  is  not  the  indiepcnsable  con- 
necting link  between  the  grace  of  God  and  the 
life  of  the  Ciuirch.  I may  believe,  with  the  great 
apostle,  that  for  reasons  inscrutable  to  us,  the  wise, 
good  and  just  God  may  and  actually  does  “maite 
men  to  differ,'^  but  surely  this  does  not  imply  that 
either  myself  or  you  should,  of  our  own  motion,  be 
allowed  to  play  the  Sovereign  among  Christian 
Churches,  emd  elect  some  and  shut  out  otliers, 


36 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


upon  such  futile  grounds  as  that  they  do  not 
agree  with  us  in  our  respective  notions  as  to 
Church  order.  This  is  the  claim  I am  resisting, 
and  which  I would  resist  as  firmly,  were  it  ad- 
vanced by  a Presbyterian  or  Congregationalist,  as 
I now  do,  when  it  is  advanced  by  a Frelatist.  It 
is  not  Prelacy,  but  exclusive  Prelacy,  monopoliz- 
ing Prelacy,  that  we  are  now  concerned  with. 

When  we  have  settled  this  point  I will  be 
ready  to  meet  you,  ar  d to  vindicate  rational  views 
upsn  any  of  the  doctrinal  points  which  are  to  be 
found  in  our  standards,  and  this  among  them.  I 
will  be  glad  of  an  opportunity  of  showing  that 
we  hold  all  infants  to  be  elect,  and  therefore  sa- 
ved, by  the  grace  of  Christ,  in  which  respect  we 
differ  from  you,  who  make  baptism  indispensable 
to  their  regeneration,  and  thus  to  their  salva- 
tiori.  And  in  reference  to  all  mankind,  I will 
undertake  to  show  that  neither  the  quotations 
you  have  made  from  the  Westminster  confession, 
nor  the  11th  article  of  your  own  Church,  nor 
the  well-known  views  of  the  English  Reformers, 
nor  the  equally  well-known  views  cf  many  of 
your  ablest  Prelates  of  past  and  present  times, 
militate  in  any  degree  against  a free  Gospel  and  a 
large  charity.  All  this  1 pledge  myself  to  do,  if  you 
will  hereafter  consent  to  meet  me.  In  the  mean- 
time I will  dismiss  the  subject,  by  delicately  hint- 
ing that  the  next  time  you  may  wish  to  deal  a 
blow  at  an  opponent,  you  would  do  well  to  select 
a weapon  which  in  some  of  its  flourishings  will 
not  cut  off"  the  heads  of  many  of  your  own  breth- 
ren, and  strike  down  one  of  the  articles  of  your 
own  creed.  That  I am  not  making  a mere  in- 
sinuation, destitute  of  any  basis,  I refer  the  rea- 
der to  the  17th  article  of  your  creed,  which  I 
give  in  a note.* 

The  argument  in  your  last,  so  far  as  it  touches 
the  point  at  all,  is  but  a repetition  of  the  former 
strain.  To  use  a homely  comparison,  in  using 
which  I mean  no  offence,  you  find  yourself  in  the 
condition  of  the  animal  in  the  fable  which  had 
lost  his  brush,  and  would  fain  persuade  others  to 
put  themselves  in  the  same  condition.  Nay  you 
insist  upon  it  that  I am  actually  in  the  same  con- 
dition with  yourself,  on  the  question  of  unchurch- 
ing. Bwifact  contradicts  this.  When  you  can 
point  to  an  instance  in  which  your  opponents  have 


*Art.  XVII.  Of  Predestination  and  election. 

Predestination  to  life  is  the  everlasting  purpose  of  God, 
whereby  (before  the  foundations  of  the  world  were  laid)  he 
hath  constantly  decreed  by  his  counsel,  secret  to  us,  to  deliver 
from  curse  and  damnation,  those  whom  he  hath  chosen  in 
Christ  out  of  mankind,  and  to  bring  them  by  Christ  to  ever- 
lasting salvation,  as  vessels  made  to  honour.  tV  herefore  they 
which  be  endued  with  so  exc  -lleut  a benefit  of  God,  he  calied 
according  to  God’s  purpose  by  his  Spiiit  working  in  due  sea- 
son; they  through  grace  obey  the  calling;  they  bejastified 
freely:  they  be  made  sons  ol  God  by  adoption:  they  be  made 
like  the  image  of  his  only  begotten  Son  Jesus  Christ:  they 
walk  leligiously  in  good  works;  and  at  length  by  God’s  mer- 
cy they  attain  to  everlasting  felicity. 

A.s  the  godiy  consideration  of  Predestination,  and  our  elec- 
tion in  Christ,  is  full  of  sweet,  pleasant,  and  unspeakable  com- 
fort to  godly  pel  sons,  . nd  such  as  fe  i in  themselves  the  work- 
ings of  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  moriil'ying  the  v,  orks  9I  the  flesh 
aid  their  eartiily  members,  and  drawing  up  theii  mind  to  high 
and  heavenly  things,  as  well  because  it  dvth  great  y establish 
and  confirm  their  faith  of  eternal  salvation,  to  be  enjoyed 
through  Christ  as  because  it  doth  fervently  kindle  their  love 
toward  God:  so,  for  curious  and  crrnal  persons,  lacking  the 
Spirit  of  Christ,  to  liave  coutinually  before  iheireyes  the  .Sen- 
tence of  God’s  Predestination,  is  a most  dangerous  downfall, 
whereby  the  Devil  doth  thrust  them  either  i«to  desperation, 
or  into  wretchlessu^ss  of  most  unclean  living,  no  less  perilous 
than  desperation, 

Farthermore,  we  must  receive  God’s  promises  in  such  wise 
as  they  be  generally  set  forth  to  us  in  holy  Scriptiue:  And  in 
our  doings,  that  will  of  God  is  to  be  followed,  which  we  hav'e 
xpressly  declared  unto  us  in  the  Word  of  God, 


re-baptized  or  re-ordained  any  one  coming  from 
other  Christian  denominations,  I give  you  leave 
to  hold  up  my  bigotry  and  inconstancy  to  scorn. 
When  you  can  show  thatone  of  your  number  has 
partaken  of  the  symbols  of  communion  at  the 
hands  of  Christian  ministers  who  do  not  admit 
the  absolute  necessity  of  Prelacy — when  you  can 
produce  an  instance  of  among  us,  similar  to  one 
among  you,  in  which  a modest  High-Churchraan 
(speaking  of  a minister  his  equal,  aye  his  superior 
in  every  quality  that  constitutes  moral  and  intel- 
lectual dignity,)  said  of  him,  “ He  has  no  more 
right  to  preach  the  gospel  than  that  dog” — when 
you  can  find  among  us  an  individual  who  has  gone 
so  far  as  to  call  in  question  your  right  even  to  cele- 
brate marriage — when  you  can  show  that  we 
have  called  ourselves  with  offensive  presumption, 
The  Church,  and  have  even  gone  to  the  Legisla- 
lature  of  the  State,  as  you  have  done,  to  ask  for 
the  incorporation  of  a society  under  this  exclusive 
title,  “ The  Church  Mariners’  Society” — when 
you  can  show,  from  the  pages  of  any  author  re- 
cognized among  us,  such  claims  for  their  owm 
precise  order  as  I can  show  upon  the  pages  of 
Dodwell  and  Palmer,  and  Hook  and  Hobart,  and 
a host  of  others,  who  go  far  to  make  prelacy  or 
perdition  the  alternative — then  I will  admit  that 
High-Church  pretensions  do  not  assail  the  charac- 
ter and  usefulness  of  those  who  differ  from  you. 

You  deny  that  you  have  thus  assailed  their 
character  and  usefulness.  I consider  my  char, 
acter  assailed  when  1 am  met  on  all  hands  with 
the  insulting  assertion  which  virtually  amounts 
to  this — “ Sir,  you  are  a sham  minister  ; yours  is 
a sham  Church  ; yours  are  forged  credentials ; 
you  have  no  right  to  preach  the  Gospel.”  It  is  no 
fault  of  High  Church  pretension,  if  you  cannot 
persuade  the  world  to  believe  these  things.  But 
should  you  succeed  in  persuading  them,  I ask 
whether  our  usefulness  to  society  would  not  at  once 
be  destroyed.  This  is  what  I mean  when  I say 
that  self-respect,  and  self-defence,  and  the  good 
of  the  world,  all  demand  a resistance  of  the  as- 
sertion that  there  can  he  no  Church  without  a 
Prelate.  I have  shown  the  legitimate  conse- 
quences of  this  position  ; I have  shown  the  sense 
in  which  it  is  understood  by  the  world,  and  by 
your  own  writers.  If  you  now  start  back  from 
these  consequences,  it  is  because  they  are  odious 
to  others,  and  therefore  injurious  to  yourselves — 
and  not  because  they  are  not  logically  derived 
from  your  position.  You  say  you  do  not  give 
over  all  other  denominations  to  uncovenanted 
mercies.  Are  the  covenant  mercies  of  God  then 
equally  shared  by  those  who  are  in  and  those  who 
are  out  of  the  Church  ? If  you  admit  this,  you 
do  indeed  give  up  the  point,  and  take  back  your 
unchurching  dogma,  and  the  debate  may  cease. 
Again,  you  say  you  would  welcome  to  your  com- 
munion myself  and  the  communicants  of  our 
Church,  if  driven  from  what  you  call  our  ‘ tem- 
pie  of  worship,^  by  fire.  Yes,  doubtless,  but  it 
would  be  only  because,  by  accepting  your  prof, 
fered  hospitality,  we  should  be  virtually  admit- 
ting that  we  were  Prelatists  for  the  occasion. — 
How  we  could  go  to  partake  of  a hospilality  so 
invidious,  and  so  hedged  round  with  provisos  and 
conditions,  as  for  instance  that  we  must  be  first 
‘ lawfully  baptized, and  not  ‘ wilfully  and 
knowingly  schismatics' — is  another  question. — 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


37 


Hospitality  is  not  worthy  of  the  name,  which  is 
not  reciprocated.  Let  me  put  the  question  : — 
Would  you  come  to  us,  and  sit  down  with  us  at 
the  table  of  our  common  Lord,  should  your  ‘ tem- 
ple of  worship’  be  consumed  by  fire  ? Unless 
you  can  answer  this  question  in  the  affirmative,  1 
hand  you  back  your  modicum  of  charity  and  hos- 
pitality,  until  it  is  so  far  increased  as  to  make  an 
acceptance  of  it  compatible  with  a decent  self- 
respect.  Again,  you  pronounce  the  Churches  of 
the  Reformation  to  be  no  Churches,  and  yet  say 
you  do_not  unchurch  those  who  belong  to  them. 
Let  who  can,  reconcile  this  unchurching  of  ag- 
gregates with  a churching  of  the  individuals  who 
compose  the  aggregates.  No,  sir  ; with  all  your 
distinctions,  intended  as  loop-holes  for  the  escape 
of  charity,  your  position  is  unchanged  ; you  do 
claim,  and  claim  as  the  exclusive  property  of 
Roman  and  Anglican  Prelatists,  the  name,  the 
authority,  ihe  immunities,  the  sacraments,  the 
rights  and  blessings  of  the  visible  Church  of 
Christ.  And  I again  call  upon  you  to  let  the 
world  have  the  evidence  of  this  claim  ; the  as- 
tounding consequences  of  which  are  such  as  to 
require  evidence  little  short  of  demonstration  to 
justify  them. 

I now  proceed  more  immediately  to  the  point 
before  us,  and  to  which  I have  not  yet  succeeded 
in  bringing  you.  If  our  readers  will  be  patient, 
I promise  to  be  patient  myself,  in  the  hope  that 
the  true  issue  cannot  be  much  longer  postponed. 

You  seem  to  think  that  a certain  query,  which 
closes  your  last  letter  but  one,  contains  somethirrg 
so  formidable  to  my  argument  that  I purposely 
avoided  any  notice  of  it.  This  is  quite  a mis- 
take. I cannot  perceive,  in  the  question  referred 
to,  any  Scylla  and  Charybdis,  any  sunken  rocks, 
through  which  I feared  to  pass.  In  what  I have 
already  offered,  the  question  had  been  answered 
again  and  again.  It  is  in  fact  the  very  question 
in  debate,  viz:  the  necessary  succession  of  indi- 
viduals. If  you  require  farther  satisfaction  upon 
this  point,  I hope  my  succeeding  remarks  will  fur- 
nish it. 

A ministry,  a divinely  appointed  ministry,  a 
ministry  to  the  exercise  of  the  dudes  of  which 
there  should  be  God’s  call,  which  call  I defined 
to  consist  in  certain  internal  and  external  signs, 
such  as  God’s  grace,  and  God’s  Providence  can 
alone  bestow  upon  any  one  such  a ministry,  I 
believe,  enters  into  the  very  idea  of  a Church, 
besides  being  distinctly  recognized  in  the  Word 
of  God. 

Now,  I maintain  that  with  such  a call  one  is  as 
really  “ called  of  God  as  was  Aaron,'’  for  I take 
it  for  granted  that  no  man  of  common  sense  will 
see,  in  this  passage  to  which  you  have  so  often  re- 
ferred, any  thing  more  than  that  every  particular 
individual,  before  his  assumption  of  the  ministerial 
office,  should  be  guided  by  some  divine  directions. 
Aaron  and  his  sons  were  called  hy  a direct  call 
from  God  given  to  Moses  in  express  terms.  Do 
you  mean  that  it  is  by  such  a call  as  this,  that 
your  Prela'  ‘s,  priests  and  deacons  are  summoned 
to  their  pUces  ? In  this  sense,  are  they  “ called 
of  God  as  was  Aaron  ?”  Taking  for  granted  that 
none  have  yet  reached  the  point  of  claiming,  in 
behalf  of  the  ministry,  an  ms’jpfrerf  appointment 
of  each  individual,  such  as  that  of  Aaron,  there  is 
nothing  more  in  the  text  referred  to  than  an  in- 


culcation of  the  duty  of  seeking  the  Divine  direc- 
tion in  every  way  reasonable  and  possible  at  the 
present  time.  Such  a divine  direction  consists, 
as  I have  already  said,  (1)  in  strong  and  pious 
desires  to  honor  our  master  in  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel, — (2)  in  the  possession  of  the  requisite 
endowments,  and  (3)  in  the  invitation  of  the 
Church,  (embracing  the  ministry  and  the  people,) 
calling  the  individual  to  the  exercise  of  his  gifts. 

Where,  then,  does  this  discussion  rub?  At 
what  point  do  your  route  and  mine  diverge  ? — 
Just  here,  in  the  first  instance:  that  you  make 
the  very  existence  of  the  ministry,  and  of  course 
the  validity  of  its  functions,  depend  necessarily, 
and  in  all  supposahle  cases,  upon  its  descent 
through  an  unbroken  line  of  persons,  along 
which  line  alone  can  be  conveyed  what  some 
have  called  “ Episcopal  grace.”  In  other  words, 
you  affirm  an  unbroken  chain  of  ministers — we 
affirm  a perpetuated  ministry ; yours  is  a succes- 
sion of  men,  ours  a succession  of  truth;  you  in- 
sist upon  the  officers,  we  upon  the  office.  Instead 
©f  following  your  remarks  through  all  their  wind- 
ings— which  would  be  labor  thrown  away — I 
am  only  anxious  to  set  our  opposite  principles 
clearly  before  the  reader’s  view.  For  this  pur- 
pose, I beg  your  and  his  attention  to  an  illustra- 
tion. It  shall  be  taken  from  the  very  sentence  in 
Mr.  Choate’s  noble  oration  which  occasioned 
your  utterance  of  the  unchurching  dogma.  “ A 
State  without  a King — a Church  without  a 
Prelate : a sentence  which  I hope  will  be  long 
remembered. 

Now  you  have  undertaken  to  deny  the  truth 
contained  in  the  latter  half  of  this  sentence,  and 
have  affirmed,  not  that  there  may  a Church  with 
Prelates,  (which  I freely  admit)  but  that  there  can 
be  no  Church  without  them.  I shall  endeavor  to 
show  that  you  might,  with  equal  justice,  have 
called  the  other  truth  in  question,  and  have  un- 
dertaken to  prove,  not  that  there  may  be  a State 
with  a King,  but  that  there  cannot  be  a State 
without  one.  To  my  apprehension,  it  would  have 
been  quite  edifying  and  agreeable  to  the  sturdy 
republicans  at  the  New-England  festival,  if  her 
Majesty’s  consul,  had  he  chanced  to  be  present, 
had  followed  Dr.  Wainwright’s  challenge  of  the 
one  position,  by  a similar  challenge  of  the  other. 
But  this  by  the  way.  The  point  of  my  present 
remark  is,  that  such  a challenge  would  have  been 
equally  just,  and  for  the  following  reasons. 

Even  admitting  (what  I am  by  no  means  dis- 
posed to  admit  except  for  argument’s  sake,)  that 
Prelacy  is  distinctly  recognized  in  Scripture  as 
the  existing  form  of  the  Christian  Church  at  that 
day,  it  is  not  surely  more  distinctly  recognized 
than  monarchy  is,  as  the  then  existing  form  of 
civil  government.  “ Render  unto  Cwsar  the 
things  that  are  Ccesar's;"  Honor  the  King; 
The  powers  that  he  arc  ordained  of  God,"  says 
inspired  authority.  I may  remark,  in  passing, 
that  when  you  can  show  as  good  a proof  text  for 
exclusive  assumptions  in  the  Church,  as  these 
and  some  others  which  the  advocates  of  the  ex- 
clusive Divine  right  of  kings  can  show,  I shall 
be  disposed  to  think  much  better  of  the  modesty 
of  those  assumptions.  Supposing,  however,  that 
an  equally  pointed  recognition  of  Prelacy  can  be 
shown,  as  that  which  the  believers  in  monarchy 
appeal  to — would  it  justify  you  in  making  it,  as 


38 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


you  do  make  it,  absolutely  and  without  any  ex- 
ception, essential  to  the  very  being  of  the  Church  ? 
Is  there  no  room  to  be  allowed  for  mistake — no 
ground  for  the  possible  supposition  that  Prelacy, 
like  monarchy,  might  be  dropped  to  suit  circum- 
stances,  and  yet  not  actually  destroy  the  Church, 
and  leave  it  without  God’s  blessing  ? If  some 
should  affirm  that  there  is  so  strong  an  affinity 
between  Prelacy  and  monarchy  that  they  should 
go  together,  (and  this  seemed  to  be  the  belief  of 
King  James  I — whose  haired  for  Presbyterianism 
often  found  vent  in  his  favorite  maxim,  “No 
Bishop,  no  King,”)  and  if  others  should  affirm 
that  a republic  in  the  state  requires  a republic  in 
the  Church;  and  if  upon  these  principles  they 
should  severally  agree  to  arrange  the  order  of 
Church  government — the  question  occurs  wheth- 
er either  of  these  classes  of  persons  could  by  justly 
charged  by  the  other  with  the  guilt  of  absolutely 
subverting  the  Church. 

Now  in  respect  to  both  the  Church  and  the 
state,  both  of  them  institutes  distinctly  recog- 
nized in  the  Bible,  I boldly  affirm  (and  I pray  you 
observe  that  this  is  the  substance  of  my  first  ar- 
gument, which  you  have  not  so  much  as  touched,) 
that  the  Bible  does  not  make  a particular  form 
of  either  indispensable  to  the  existence  of  either. 
The  passages  I have  referred  to,  upon  which  a 
staunch  High-Churchman  in  England  would  build 
the  exclusive  divine  right  of  Queen  Victoria,  do 
not,  as  you  will  admit,  justify  such  a conse- 
quence. If  they  did,  then  was  our  revolution  re- 
bellion, and  our  present  existence  is  a continued 
rebellion  against  a constitution  which  God  has 
appointed.  Will  you  take  this  consequence  ? If 
not,  v/hy  ? The  word  of  God  no  where  recog- 
nizes a popular  government  in  the  state.  There 
is  no  mention  there  of  a President,  chosen  by  the 
popular  voice.  On  the  contrary  the  authority 
looks  altogether  the  other  way. 

What  then  ? What  reply  will  you  make  to  the 
Scriptural  argument  for  the  exclusive  divine  right 
of  Kings  ? Precisely  this,  which  I make  to  youi 
claim  of  the  exclusive  Divine  right  of  Prelates  ; 
that  the  office-bearers  of  the  State  are  not  the  es- 
sence of  the  State — that  God  has  divinely  ap- 
pointed Govermnent,  but  has  not  prescribed  any 
precise  details  of  Government  or  the  mode  of  con- 
stituting Governors — that  He  has  enjoined  civil 
law  and  obedience  to  civil  law,  but  has  not  en- 
joined that  the  law-makers  shall  be  hereditary 
raonarchs,  whose  autliority  is  derived  from  their 
predecessors,  and  theirs  again  from  other  prede- 
cessors  in  an  unbroken  monarchical  succession, 
akin  to  your  apostolical  succession — in  one  word, 
that  there  may  be  a state,  divinely  authorized  by 
His  province — a state  meeting  all  the  substantial 
requirements  of  civil  Government — a state  with 
competent  officers — and  yet  a state  without  a 
King. 

The  analogy  might  be  indefinitely  pursued, 
were  this  the  time — it  is  perfect.  God  has  ap- 
pointed a government  in  his  Church — he  has  es- 
tablished a ministry — he  has  warranted  the  ap. 
pointrnent  of  agents  to  carry  out  the'  necessary 
purposes  of  a Church  relation.  Up  to  this  point 
we  agree — but  at  this  point,  as  I have  said,  we 
diverge.  You  are  not  willing  to  allow  of  a diver- 
sity of  judgment  as  to  the  appointment  and  induc- 
tion of  these  agents,  but  actually  make  it  essen- 


tial that  they  should,  in  every  case,  become  pos- 
sessed of  their  rights  by  a sort  of  hereditary  and 
unbroken  descent.  This  is  your  theory  of  exclu- 
sive legitimacy,  and,  as  I have  shown,  it  finds  its 
counterpart  in  the  monarchical  legitimacy  of  the 
old  world,  judged  by  which  the  government  of  the 
United  States  is  not  a government  at  all ; and  has 
none  of  the  rights,  and  none  of  the  duties  of  a 
government.  Upon  this  principle,  we  are  bound 
to  renounce  our  constitution,  and  at  once  fall  back 
upon  the  principle  of  a succession,  by  submitting 
ourselves  to  the  Queen  of  America. 

But  as  it  will  be  some  time  before  the  people 
of  this  land  can  be  brought  to  this  conclusion  as 
to  the  state,  so  1 am  sure  it  will  be  some  time 
before  they  can  admit  the  conclusion  as  to  your 
Church,  or  any  other  individual  Church.  Just 
as  in  the  state,  there  were  abundant  reasons  for 
the  rejection  of  the  empire  of  Great  Britain,  and 
for  a reorganization  of  a new  government  growing 
out  of  the  great  charter  of  human  rights  which 
lies  aback  of  all  governments,  so  in  the  church, 
when  a necessity  exists,  Christians  may  fall 
back  upon  the  great  charter  of  religious  truth, 
the  Bible,  abandon  an  old  and  intolerable  tyran- 
ny,  and  reorganize  themselves  as  a Church  of 
Christ. 

And  farther,  as  in  the  State,  when  reorganized, 
the  necessity  of  officers,  and  the  necessity  of  ap. 
pointing  and  inducting  them  according  to  some 
established  rule,  will  be  apparent,  so  in  the  Church, 
when  reorganized,  the  same  necessity  will  origin- 
ate rules  more  or  less  accordant  with  truth  and 
justice.  And  this  is  the  sense  in  which  you  are 
to  understand  all  the  rules  in  regard  to  the  ap. 
pointrnent  and  induction  of  a ministry  which  you 
find  in  the  several  formularies  of  the  reformed 
churches. 

You  came  out  of  the  Roman  hierarchy,  some- 
what  later  than  the  Churches  on  the  Continent ; 
so  far  as  that  hierarchy  could,  it  deprived  all  the 
reformed  bodies  of  their  ecclesiastical  rights. 
They  did  not  heed  this,  but  quietly  proceeded  to 
exercise  the  rights  inherent  in  Christian  believers, 
and  of  which  no  excommunication  can  deprive 
them,  and  to  organize  themselves  into  Christian 
Churches. 

By  considering  these  statements,  the  reader  will 
see  that  insuperable  objections  must  lie  against 
the  figment  of  which  you  make  so  much,  (bnt 
which  you  have  not  yet  attempted  to  prove,)  the 
necessity  of  a succession  of  individuals  in  order 
to  the  existence  of  a lawful  government  and  a 
lawful  ministry  in  the  Church.  I bring  you  back 
again  to  this  point.  I am  quite  sure  that  you 
have  seen  along  that  it  is  the  turning  point,  and 
considering  the  insuperable  difficulties  by  which 
it  is  beset, I am  not  surprised  that  you  are  unwilling 
to  confront  them.  You  claim  such  a succession, 
as  the  very  basis  upon  which  alone  the  unchurch- 
ing dogma  can  possibly  rest.  I deny  that  Scrip- 
ture prescribes  it  as  invariably  necessary,  and 
have  again  and  again  called  for  the  proof.  The 
burden  of  proof  lies  on  you.  Hoping  that  you 
will  feel  that  you  are  now  hedged  in,  and  remind- 
ing you  that,  in  order  to  justify  your  bold  tone 
and  prove  a tenet  which  carries  with  it  such  as- 
tounding results,  you  must  produce  the  most  un- 
doubted evidence,  I beg  leave  to  say  in  conclu- 
sion that  you  are  called  upon  to  prove  your  point, 


39 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


by  establishing  the  three  following  propositions  : 

I.  That  Scripture  imperatively  requires  an  un- 
interrupted succession  of  individuals,  in  order  to 
the  validity  of  ministerial  character  and  acts. 

II.  That  this  succession  must  necessarily  run 
in  the  line  of  diocesan  Bishops  ; and  after  estab- 
lishing these  two  propositions,  then 

III.  That  you  can  claim  such  a succession  for 
your  ministry,  so  that  not  a link  of  the  chain  shall 
be  wanting  ; and,  considering  what  powers  you 
claim  for  your  ministry,  (upon  which  point  I will 
hereafter  make  some  developementsj  and  consid- 
ering also  the  grounds  upon  which  you  claim  those 
powers,  you  must  not  leave  the  shadow  of  a doubt 
as  to  your  possession  of  this  famous  Apostolical 
succession. 

After  you  have  given  your  views  upon  these 
points,  I shall  have  more  to  say. 

Rpspectfully,  your  oW’c  ser’c,  liEORGE  POTTS. 

Febkuaiiy  2, 1844. 

LETTER  XVII. 

REV.  DR.  V/AINWRIGHT  TO  REV.  DR.  POTTS. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir : — I am  quite  as  well  aware 
as  you  can  be  how  much  of  my  last  letter  is 
strictly  pertinent  to  the  question  now  between  us, 
whether  Episcopacy  is  esclusively  the  Divine 
constitution  of  the  Church,  but  I do  not  admit 
that  any  of  it  is  irrelevant  to  the  mode  in  which 
you  have  from  the  commencement  conducted  the 
discussion.  This  is  a point,  however,  which  I 
am  perfectly  content  to  submit  to  the  decision  of 
our  readers — simply  begging  them  to  remember 
that  I am  the  respondent  in  this  debate,  and 
therefore  in  a measure  compelled  to  await  your 
movements,  and  to  follow  the  course  of  argument 
you  may  adopt. 

You  have  spoken  more  than  once  of  my  seek- 
ing to  “ avert  the  dreaded  issue,”  and  have  called 
upon  me,  with  what  courtesy  of  tone  and  manner 
I will  leave  others  to  judge,  to  “ come  to  it,”  to 
“ come  to  it  boldly,”  and  to  “prove”  this  and 
that.  Now,  sir,  permit  me  to  say  that  you  en- 
tirely forget  yourself,  and  lose  sight  of  your  true 
position,  when  you  use  this  language. 

You  talk  of  bringing  me  to  the  point.  So  far 
from  seeking  to  evade  the  point,  my  sole  object 
has  been  to  bring  you  to  it.  Not  until  you  had 
put  forth  your  fifth  letter  did  I succeed  in  bring- 
ing  you  to  advance  one  single  step  toward  estab- 
lishing the  proposition  you  undertook  to  demon- 
strate, namely,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  necessity 
of  Episcopacy  to  the  constitution  of  the  Church 
of  Christ  is  unscriptural,  &c.  &,c. 

You  then  advanced  what  you  called  your  first 
ARGUMENT,  in  foim  as  follows  : 

“ I.  Because  there  is  no  warrant  from  the  Word  of 

God  for  making  any  particular  external  form  of 

polity  a condition,”  ^c. 

Now  obviously  this  allegation  contains  no  ar- 
gument, unless  the  matter  alleged  be  true.  You 
boldly  affirm  that  it  is  true.  I pray  you  fo  con- 
sider that  your  affirmation  does  not  necessarily 
make  it  true.  I have  denied  your  allegation, — I 
still  deny  it.  It  belongs  to  you,  therefore,  to 
prove  it.  This  you  have  not  done,  nor  have  you 
advanced  a single  step  toward  doing  it.  So  far, 
then,  as  concerns  the  question  between  us,  your 

first  argument  ” is  as  yet  no  argument  at  alii 


it  is  a solitary,  unsupported  assertion  of  yours, 
which  I have  denied. 

.You  indeed  called  upon  me  to  disprove  your 
assertion,  and  Eilthougli  I was  not  under  any  ob- 
ligation  to  disprove  what  you  were  first  bound  to 
prove,  I did,  as  I maintain,  fully  and  fairly  dis- 
prove  it  out  of  your  own  standards,  and  by  the 
judicial  action  of  your  own  General  Assembly, 
supported  by  the  authority  of  Scripture. 

You  still  repeat  this  same  call.  I am  sorry  to 
be  obliged  to  remind  you  again  how  illogical,  not 
to  say  absurd,  this  demand  of  yours  will  be,  even 
if  I had  done  nothlhg  more  than  simply  deny 
your  assertion.  But  it  is  due  to  my  own  charac- 
ter, both  for  moral  fairness  and  logical  accuracy, 
to  vindicate  myself  against  your  reiterated  charges 
of  not  coming  ‘ to  the  point,’  ‘ dreading  the  issue,’ 
&.C.  I wish  our  readers,  therefore,  to  bear  with 
me  while  in  a few  words  I endeavor,  for  the  last 
time,  to  justify  myself  for  the  course  of  argument 
I have  taken. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  then,  I beg  them  to  re- 
member  that  you  advanced  an  assertion  and 
called  upon  me  to  disprove  it  I Surely,  sir,  you 
cannot  be  so  ignorant  of  the  rules  of  fair  discus- 
sion as  to  suppose  that  I was  logically  bound  to 
do  any  thing  more,  in  the  first  instance,  than  deny 
your  assertion.  The  burden  of  proof  (notwith- 
standing your  continual  declaration  to  the  contra- 
ry) rested  with  you. 

2.  But,  secondly,  it  may  be  thought,  perhaps, 
that  although,  according  to  the  strict  rules  of  de- 
bate, the  burden  of  proof  rested  upon  you,  yet,  in- 
asmuch as  your  allegation  was  a negative  one,  it 
was  hardly  consistent  with  my  professed  anxiety 
to  come  to  the  main  issue  for  me  to  stand  upon 
my  rights  as  respondent,  and  insist  on  your  pro- 
ving your  negative  allegation ; but  that  if  I did 
not  admit  it,  I ought  in  fairness  to  waive  the  tech- 
nical right  and  proceed  to  disprove. 

I frankly  admit  that  there  are  cases  in  which  I 
should  feci  disposed  to  pursue  this  course.  But 
this  is  far  from  being  such  a case.  And  why  ? 
Simply  because  the  negative  allegation  which  you 
call  your  “ first  argument,”  is  tantamount  to  a 
petitio  principii,  a mere  beggingof  the  very  point 
in  question  ; for  if  there  be  “ no  warrant  from  the 
Word  of  God  for  making  any  particular  form  of 
polity  a condition,”  then,  of  course,  exclusive 
Episcopacy  is  unscriptural ; but  this  latter  is  the 
very  point  you  undertook  to  demonstrate.  You 
might  as  well,  therefore,  not  have  advanced  your 
“ first  argument”  at  all,  but  have  persisted  in  the 
course  first  adopted  and  so  long  continued,  but 
which  I understood  you  in  your  fifth  letter  to 
abandon,  namely,  that  of  calling  upon  me  to  dis- 
PROVE  the  main  proposition  which  you  undertook 

to  PROVE. 

If,  therefore,  I was  justified  in  declining  to  dis- 
prove this  main  proposition  until  you  had  offered 
your  proofs  to  sustain  it,  I should  have  been 
equally  justified  in  declining  to  notice  the  allega- 
tion which  you  call  your  “ first  argument,”  any 
otherwise  than  by  a simple  denial  of  it,  since  it  is 
only  another  form  of  reasserting  what  you 
“ pledged”  yourself  in  your  first  letter  to  prove. 

Your  first  proof,  or  argument  as  you  term  it, 
and  your  call  upon  me  to  disprove  it,  are  no  doubt 
a very  ingenious  mode  of  endeavoring  again  to 
accomplish  what  in  the  outset  you  tried  and  have 


A CRvrsA  witRauf  a BtsRap, 


4^ 


©onstaiitly  been  aiming  at,  that  isj  to  induce  me 
fo  change  places  v.dth  you,  I shall  do  no  such 
thing.  You  are  affirmant,  I^j^pspondent.  You 
are  bound  to  prove  exclusive  Episcopacy,  “ un- 
scriptural.’’  I am  bound  to  defend  it.  Tms 

I nESIRE  YC«P*  READERS  NEVER  TO  FORGET. 

There  are  doubtless  inconveniences  to  yourself 
in  the  attempt  to  prove  a negative,  as  you  have 
undertaken  to  do.  That  is  not  my  faidt.  You 
slmuld  have  thought  of  that  before. 

3.  But,  thirdly,  I did  not  insist  on  holding  you  to 
the  strict  rules  of  fair  debate.  I met  your  allega- 
tion with  what  I consider  abundant  argument  to 
disprove  it.  The  refutation  I employed  was  partly 
ad  honiinem  (not  ad  invidiam,  as  by  a strange 
confusion  of  different  thirjgs  you  termed  it.)  I 
showed,  namely,  that  whether  the  matUr  of  your 
first  allegation  were  true  or  not  true,  it  was  not  an 
argiimertt  for  you  to  offer ; but  m addition  to  this 
I positively  denied,  and  as  I say  fully  disproved, 
the  matter  itself  of  your  allegation.  1 shall  not  go 
over  that  ground  again. 

I submit  to  our  readers  that  I proved,  from  the 
authoritative  standards  of  your  own  Church,  as 
supported  by  Scripture,  and  the  decision  of  your 
General  Assembly,  that  a ministry  exte-knaelv 

ORDAINED  BY  ORDAINED  MINISTERS  IS  A D5VINE  AP- 
POINTMENT, AND  CONSEQUENTLY  NECESSARY  TO  THE 
CONSTITUTION  OF  A ChURCH,  AND  THAT  IT  IS  A 
SCRIPTURAL  DOCTRINE. 

A word  nowon  the  extraordinary  notion  of  or- 
dination put  forth  in  your  last  letter.  Notwith- 
standing, your  intimation  that  you  know  how  to 
interpret  your  standaid.s  better  than  I do,  I will 
be  bold  to  affirm  that  neither  the  formularies  of 
your  Church,  nor  your  accredited  writers,  teach 
or  countenance  any  such  latitudinarian  doctrine. 
You  talk  of  a man  becoming  a lawful  ministerby 
(1)  “ strong  and  pious  desires  to  honor  our  mas- 
ter in  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  j (2.)  requisite 
endowmems,  and  (3)  the  invitation  of  the  Church, 
(embracing  the  ministry  and  the  people)  calling 
the  individual  to  the  exercise  of  his  gifts  ” I ! I I 
am  persuaded  that  the  most  learned,  sound  and 
accredited  living  doctors  of  your  Church  would 
scout  the  idea  of  any  man,  whatever  his  “ strong 
and  pious  desires  ” and  his  “ endowments,”  ac- 
quiring any  part  of  his  authority  as  a minister  in 
virtue  of  an  “ invitation  ” 1 of  the  “ people.” — 
And  they  will  teffi  you,  moreover,  that  he  would 
have  the  authority  of  a"  minister  if  ordained  by 
imposition  of  hands  of  the  “ ministry  ” of  the 
Church,  even  though  he  and  his  ordainers  should 
happen  to  have  erred  as  to  his  “ strong  and  pious 
desires,”  and  even  though  the  “ people  should 
never  have  invited  ” him  “to  exercise  his  gifts.” 

In  my  last  two  letters  I pressed  upon  you  a 
question  in  regard  to  ordination,  namely  : 
whether  a man  can  he  a lawful  minister  of 
Christ  unless  he  has  been  ordained  by  imposition 
of  hands  by  other  similarly  ordained  ministers. 

You  say  that  you  have  answered  it  “ again  and 
again.”  1 am  obliged  to  reply  that,  to  my  appre- 
hension, you  have  not  answered  it  at  all.  Ex- 
cuse me  for  saying  my  belief  is,  that  you  dare 
not  categorically  answer  it,  yes  or  no.  At  all 
events,  I submit  it  to  the  judgment  of  the  sound 
theologians  of  your  own  Church,  that  you  have 
not  answered  it. 

Instead  of  answering  it  you  have  over  and  over 


again  confounded  it  with  another  question,  which 
I have  not  yet  touched  upon.  You  have  confound- 
ed ordination  with  succession,  besides  totally  mis* 
apprehending  the  true  notion  of  succession,  as  i 
will  at  a proper  time  show.  It  is  enough  for  me 
to  tell  you  that  ordination  and  succession,  how- 
ever closely  connected,  are  yet  two  perfectly  dis- 
tinct things,  and  not  to  be  confounded. 

Whether,  on-  the  one  hand,  your  instinctive 
foresight  of  what  I might  build  upon  your  ad- 
mission of  ray  doctrine  concerning  ordination> 
(which  I contend  is  also  your  Church’s  doctrine,) 
and  on  the  other  hand  your  dislike  of  the  position 
as  toward  your  own  Church  in  which  you  wovdd 
be  placed  by  an  unqualified  denial  of  it,  led  you 
to  evade  the  point  concerning  ordination,  and 
confound  it  in  advance  with  an  erroneous  notion 
of  succession — this  I shall  not  decide. 

That  you  have  confounded  ordination  and  suc- 
cession I assert,  and  leave  it  to  your  sound  theo- 
logians to  decide  between  us. 

If  you  had  answered  my  question  concerning 
ordination,  the  way  would  have  been  immediately 
open  to  the  question  concerning  succession — a 
question  you  most  unaccountab^  imagine  I am 
desirous  to  avoid.  It  is  the  very  question  I am 
anxious  to  reach. 

I pressed  the  point  concerning  ordination  solely 
to  get  at  the  question  concerning  succession,  i 
assure  you  there  was  no  design  to  entrap  you — 
no  unworthy  artifice  in  my  course.  I supposed, 
and  I still  suppose,  that  between  a sound  Presby- 
terian and  myself  there  is  no  difference,  either  in 
regard-  to  the  necessity  for  an  externally  ordained 
ministery,  or  in  regard  to  the  Apostolical  succes- 
sion of  "that  ministry,  but  that  the  doctrine  of 
both  our  Churches  on  these  two  points  is  per- 
fectly identical ; that  there  is  no  difference  in 
principle;  and  that  the  sole  question  between  us 
is — whether  the  ordaining  power  is  given  by 
Clirist  to  all  the  Presbyters,  or  limited  to  a cer- 
tain number  of  chief  Presbyters  or  Bishops. 

The  correctness  of  this  supposition  I also  refer 
to  the  decision  of  the  intelligent  theologians  of 
your  own  Church. 

In  conclusion,  I simply  desire  our  intelligent 
and  candid  readers  to  judge  whether  the  whole 
amount  of  you  have  advanced  in  sup- 

port of  your  position,  that  exclusive  Episcopacy 
is  “ unscriptural,’'  is  any  thing  more  than  a soli- 
tary allegation,  unsupported  by  a single  proof 
from  you,  and  on  rny  part  denied  and  disproved. 

Will  you  now  produce  other  proofs  for  your  al- 
legation : or,  will  you  join  with  me  in  submitting 
this  which  you  term  your  first  argument”  as 
sufficiently  discussed,  and  proceed  to  your  second 
argument  in  proof  that  ray  dogma — no  Chiurch 
without  a Bishop — is  “ unscriptural.”  I submit 
that  one  or  the  other  of  these  things  is  what  the 
public  and  myself  have  a right  to  expect. 

I am,  llev.  and  Deai  Sir,  yoi\r  obedient  servant, 

Ftbruaiy  5th,  1814.  JONA.  M.  WAINWRIGHT. 

LETTER  XVIIf. 

REY.  DR.  POTTS  TO  REV.  DR.  WAINWRIGHT. 

It  is  now  perfectly  obvious  that  my  opponent 
does  not  mean  to  come  to  the  point,  and  therefore, 
the  idea  of  dignifying  this  correspondence  with 
the  title  of  a discussion  is  worthy  of  ridicule 
only — a ridicule  in  which  I am  not  at  all  inclined 


A Chvrch  without  a Bishop. 


41 


to  share.  I should  on  these  accounts  feel  myself 
to  be  perfectly  justified  in  altogether  dropping  an 
opponent,  who,  however  valiant  at  the  dinner- 
table,  is  like  the  knight  who  comes  into  the  lists 
with  a fine  flourish  of  trumpets,  and  a thundering 
defiance,  as  if  he  would  eat  up  his  adversary  at  a 
mouthful,  but  who  is  always  missing  when  the 
onset  arrives.  But  although  I confess  to  a strong 
feeling  of  disgust,  I am  unwilling  to  abandon  my 
object  altogether,  or  even  seem  to  shrink  from 
what  I believe  to  be  a public  service  ; more  espe- 
cially  as  I am  sure  that  I should  thereby  exceefl- 
ingly  gratify  those  who  do  not  desire  that  the  un- 
churching dogma  should  be  exposed  to  a class  of 
readers  who  have  not  heretofore  been  aware  of  its 
character  and  tendencies.  This,  however,  I am 
resolved  upon,  viz  : that  I will  pay  no  attention  to 
any  shifts  or  dodgings  for  the  future,  but  pursue 
the  line  of  argument  which  I have  commenced — 
with  my  reader  and  not  my  opponent  in  my  eye. 
I shall  therefore  say  nothing  to  the  prodigious  dis- 
play of  logic  in  his  last  production,  but  after  reca- 
pitulating what  I have  already  advanced,  and 
showing  its  point  and  bearing,  will  proceed  to  other 
considerations. 

Our  starting  point  is  the  assertion  at  the  din- 
ner table,  that  there  can  he  no  Church  without  a 
Prelate.  I have  several  times  alluded  to  my 
reasons  for  not  insisting  upon  my  right  to  demand 
of  the  loud-voiced  champion  of  exclusiveness,  that 
he  should  begin  this  discussion,  by  furnishing 
proof  of  this  allegation.  Every  one  can  see  that 
the  pretext  that,  having  advanced  a negative 
proposition,  he  cannot,  by  the  laws  of  dialectics, 
be  fairly  called  to  prove  it,  is  no  more  than  a pre- 
fect under  the  cover  of  which  he  desired  to  es- 
cape from  the  predicament  in  which  his  untimely 
dinner-speech  had  placed  him.  It  is  a mere  pre. 
text,  I say,  for  it  requires  but  a moment’s  atten- 
tion from  any  school-boy,  to  decide  that  his  as- 
sertion contains  two  negatives,  which,  (the  judi- 
cious Lindley  Murray  being  judge,)  make  the 
strongest  kind  of  affirmative.  “ There  can  be 
no  Church  without  a Prelate  without  being  a 
negative  particle,  the  assertion  amounts  to  this, 
prelacy  is  indispensable  to  the  existence  of  the 
Church  of  Christ.  Rather  than  let  him  escape, 
I consented  to  commence  the  discussion,  still 
holding  him  to  the  position  which  he  thrust  so 
vauntingly  in  the  face  of  the  whole  community, 
and  believing  that  I should  soon  subject  him  to 
the  necessity  of  letting  the  public  see  upon  what 
Scriptural  grounds  he  meant  to  justify  a doc- 
trine involving  such  astounding  consequences; 
so  contrary  to  the  common  sense  of  mankind, 
and  so  contradicted  by  every-day  facts.  Hence 
ray  first  Scriptural  argument,  aow  called  an  asser- 
tion, and  a begging  of  the  question.  That 
argument  is  unanswerable,  and  no  wonder  it  has 
been  unanswered.  It  is  to  this  effect,  that  nei- 
ther the  doctrine  of  Prelacy,  nor  that  of  Presby- 
tery, (the  one  implying  superior  and  inferior 
grades  in  the  ministerial  office,  the  other  the  per- 
fect official  equality  of  ministers  of  the  (Tospel,) 
was  made,  by  the  word  of  God,  absolutely  essen- 
tial to  the  existence  of  the  Church.  There  might 
be  a Church  with  Prelates,  there  might  be  one 
without  them.  By  this  argument  I renounced 
all  exclusive  claims  for  Presbytery  while  I de- 
nied such  claims  to  Prelacy. 


This  kind  of  argument,  I have  no  doubt,  took 
my  opponent  by  surprise,  for  it  would  have  pleased 
him  better  to  see  the  subject  presented  in  the 
shape  of  a contest  between  a member  of  one  sect 
claiming  exclusive  authority,  and  the  member  of 
another  sect  claiming  a similar  authority  ; in  oth- 
er words,  a debate  between  a Presbyterian  so 
called  and  a Prelatist,  upon  the  pitiful  question, 
which  of  the  two  was  the  true  Church.  But  I 
repeat  here  what  I have  often  said,  (because  I 
wish  the  reader  to  bear  it  in  mind,)  that  I set  out 
with  the  purpose  of  exposing  exclusive  claims.  I 
believe  that  all  the  substantial  elements  of  Pres- 
byterian government  are  traceable  in  the  word  of 
God,  and  farther,  that  it  is  best  to  adhere  to  them. 
I have  no  doubt  whatever  upon  that  point ; but  I 
would  not, therefore,  make  an  adherence  to  Presby- 
terianism essential  to  the  existence  of  the  Church 
of  Christ.  This  is  my  position,  and  I believe  the 
position  universally  held  in  my  own  communion. 
But  it  is  not  the  position  which  my  opponent  de- 
sired me  to  take,  if  one  may  judge  from  his  sub- 
sequent  efforts  to  deprive  me  of  my  catholic  char- 
acter. 

I proceeded  at  once  to  fortify  the  above  argu- 
ment by  an  appeal  to  the  spirituality  of  the  Gos- 
pel  as  a moral  institute,  in  contrast  with  the 
formalism  of  insisting  upon  the  fundamental  ne- 
cessity of  a particular  mode  of  constituting  the 
ministry.  I adduced  also  the  true  principles  of 
Christian  unity^  showing  that  it  was  a unity  of 
faith,  love  and  other  moral  affections,  which  con- 
stitute the  Christian  character — which  affections 
were  not  made  dependent  upon  an  individual’s 
external  relations  to  one  particular  Church  polity. 
I still  farther  corroborated  this  view  by  an  appeal 
to  glaring  facts,  proving  that  the  blessings  of 
God's  spirit  have  not  been  confined  to  any  one 
of  the  Christian  denominations.  From  this  fact 
I argued  that  my  opponent  must  find  himself  in 
the  following  dilemma  : obliged,  on  the  one  hand, 
to  deny  the  substantial  Christianity  of  all  com- 
munions  but  his  own — or,  by  admitting  them  to 
be  Christian,  on  the  other  hand,  obliged  to  admit 
that  the  best  blessings  of  the  Gospel,  its  promised 
spiritual  blessings,  had  been  bestowed  upon  bodies 
which  did  not  belong  to  the  Church  of  God  at  all, 
and  which  therefore  were  not  in  covenant  with 
Him — in  other  words,  that  it  made  very  little  dif- 
ference whether  men  are  in  or  out  of  ‘ the  Church.' 

Now,  without  any  great  pretensions  to  logic,  I 
take  upon  me  to  say  that  here  was  something  to 
answer,  which  has  not  been  answered.  We  are 
told  that  without  Prelates  there  is  no  Church,  and 
Scripture  is  referred  to  as  the  test.  I search  the 
Scripture  and  reply,  I can  find  no  such  dogma 
there,  but  I find  much  that  looks  the  other  way. 
What  is  the  answer  of  my  opponent  ? Why,  that 
my  own  Church  is  as  exclusive  as  his.  I go  out 
of  my  way  to  reply  to  this,  and  show  that  neither 
in  theory  nor  fact  are  we  chargeable  with  any 
such  exclusiveness.  I give  all  manner  of  illus- 
trations— I answer  all  manner  of  questions — and 
then,  to  return  the  compliment,  I ask  all  manner 
of  questions.  But  in  vain  ; the  rejoinder  is — 
risum  teneatas — “ your  Confession  of  P'aith,  your 
General  Assembly,  your  doctrine  of  predestina- 
tion,” tell  a different  story.  This  would  be  simply 
amusing,  if  it  did  not  cost  so  much  good  ink,  pa- 
per, time  and  eye-sight.  Facts  are  nothing  ; oh 


42 


A Church  without  a Bishop, 


no,  who  cares  for  facts  ? Analogies  between  the 
Church  and  the  State  are  nothing ; who  cares  for 
analogies  ? Answers  to  questions  are  nothing,  be- 
cause  they  go  beyond  a mere  yes  and  no.  Nothing, 
in  short,  is  argument,  which  does  not  suit  my  op- 
ponent.  This  is  significant,  and  I have  reason  to 
know  is  thoroughly  appreciated  by  the  great  mass 
of  our  readers. 

What  would  he  have  ? Should  he  take  it  upon 
him  to  affirm  that  there  can  be  no  state  without  a 
king,  and  profess  his  willingness  to  test  the  affirm- 
ation by  an  appeal  to  the  Federal  Constitution  ; 
the  burden  of  proof  certainly  lies  upon  him  to 
show  how  and  where  that  instrument  counte- 
nances any  such  assertion.  My  denial  that  the 
Federal  Constitution  teaches  such  a doctrine  is 
not  to  be  met  by  another  assertion,  that  the  denial 
is  a mere  unsupported  allegation,  a begging  of  the 
question,  &c.  Alas ! for  logic  ! One  can  hardly 
imagine  how  any  one,  even  though  he  were  a pro- 
fessor of  moral  philosophy  or  logic,  could  have 
constructed  such  a happy  piece  of  argument  as 
that  which  occunies  my  opponent’s  last  article. 
It  is  a novel  mode  of  playing  Ihe  part  of  res- 
pondent, the  title  in  which  he  rejoices,  and  which 
(respondens  a non  respondendo)  he  seems  to  consi- 
der as  investing  him  with  the  privilege  of  not  res- 
ponding at  all.  Instead  of  the  hard  work  of  an- 
swering questions  or  arguments,  he  prefers  to 
throw  out — like  tubs  to  a whale — the  Confession  of 
Faith,  predestination,  sixty  thousand  excommuni- 
cated Presbyterians,  &c.,  in  hope  that  he  may 
distract  attention  from  the  main  issue.  The  read- 
er  understood  all  these  things,  and  considers  them 
as  signals  of  dirtress  from  a vessel  on  a lee  shore. 
Enough  of  them.  I shall  notice  hereafter  nothing 
but  argument. 

In  support  of  the  position  advanced  in  my  fifth 
letter  I pursued  briefly,  in  my  last,  an  analogy 
between  the  State  and  the  Church,  and  showed 
conclusively  (so  conclusively  as  to  have  placed  it 
beyond  my  opponent’s  power  of  reply,  for  he  does 
not  notice  it  all,)  that  even  admitting,  for  the 
sake  of  argument,  that  Prelacy  is  recognized  in 
Scripture  as  the  then  existing  model  of  Church 
order,  it  is  not  more  distinctly  recognized  than 
monarchy.  And  yet  that  no  one  in  this  land  will 
affirm  that  our  rejection  of  the  latter  was  against 
the  will  of  God,  in  such  a sense  as  to  destroy  the 
State.  In  other  words,  that  even  supposing  we 
may  have  erred  (as  I am  told  a few  highly  con- 
servative, strong  government  people  among  us 
do,)  in  casting  off*  the  kingly  polity,  we  are,  nev- 
ertheless, a bona  fide  state.  If  this  be  so,  (as  all 
will  admit)  I asked  whether  a similar  error  in  re- 
spect to  Prelacy  (supposing  it  to  have  been  even 
half  as  explicitly  recognized  in  Scripture  as  mon- 
archy is)  must  necessarily  be  a fundamental  error, 
which  puts  the  mistaking  persons  completely  be- 
yond the  pale  of  the  Christian  Church.  The 
force  of  this  illustration  of  the  gross  absurdity  of 
the  High  Church  exclusiveness  consists  in  this, 
that  such  exclusiveness  makes  an  error  as  to  form, 
as  fatal  as  an  error  in  regard  to  substance ; that  it 
puts  upon  a par,  the  accidents  and  the  essence  ; 
that  it  confounds  government  with  the  function- 
aries of  government.  No  Church  without  a Pre- 
late can  be  maintained  only  by  a course  of  rea- 
soning which  will  establish  the  corresponding 
doctrine,  No  State  without  a King. 


But  the  main  thought  is,  that  this  analogy  des. 
troys  the  doctrine  of  a necessary  succession  of  in- 
dividuals. For,  as  that  succession  in  the  state 
was  broken  up  entirely  by  our  revoluti(  n,  and  yet 
the  country  was  left  wit,h  a better  government 
than  when  it  was  ruled  by  a hereditary  monarch, 
so  may  a succession  in  the  Church  be  broken  up, 
with  advantage  to  the  Church.  But  this  my  op- 
ponent  denies.  He  affirms  that  an  unbroken  series 
of  ordinations  to  the  ministry  is  the  very  basis  of 
the  Church.  It  is,  therefore,  the  turning  point  of 
the  whole  argument.  I have  again  and  again  ad- 
mitted that  there  have  been  cases,  and  may  be 
again,  in  which  the  regular  method  of  transmitting 
the  ministerial  character  might  be  interrupted, 
and  yet  a true  Church  be  preserved  and  a true 
ministry  raised  up,  and  subsequeiitly  transmitted 
by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery. 
The  reader  who  wishes  to  see  this  subject  fully 
discussed,  may  turn  to  Claude’s  well-known  de- 
fence of  the  Reformation.  As,  therefore,  any 
such  interruption  in  the  series  of  ordinations  would 
— according  to  the  doctrine  of  my  opponent — ut-. 
terly  vitiate  all  subsequent  acts,  I have  considered 
the  questions  of  an  unbroken  series  of  ordinations 
and  an  unbroken  succession,  as  really  identical, 
although  (strangely  enough,  considering  his  claims 
to  “moral  fairness  and  logical  accuracy”),  he 
denies  this  identity.  He  gives  no  reason,  however, 
and  I shall  therefore  consider  them  as  virtually 
one,  and  proceed  now  with  the  train  of  remark 
suggested  by  the  above  parallel  between  the 
Church  and  the  State. 

My  object  now  will  be  to  investigate  the  proofs 
which  are  advanced  in  support  of  the  absurd 
fancy  of  an  Apostolical  succession,  as  necessary 
to  the  existence  of  the  Church.  It  will  be  found 
to  be  a new  version  of  an  old  fable — the  world 
resting  upon  the  back  of  the  elephant,  the  ele- 
phant upon  a tortoise,  the  tortoise  upon — nothing. 
The  Church  resting  upon  Prelates,  the  Prelates 
upon  an  unbroken  descent  from  the  Apostles,  their 
predecessors,  and  this  unbroken  descent  resting 
upon — nothing. 

The  theory  is  this : our  modern  Prelates  are  the 
lineal  successors  of  the  twelve  Apostles ; to  them 
the  Apostolic  power  has  descended,  (how  much 
they  can  show  of  this  power  we  shall  see  present- 
ly,) they  only  can  appoint  a ministry,  which  min- 
istry alone  has  the  promise  of  blessing,  and  can 
rightfully  take  care  of  the  fold  of  Christ,  as  pas- 
tors ; they  only  can  confer  regeneration  in  bap- 
tism, and  they  only  (as  one  of  them  said)  have 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  to  give  to  his  peo- 
ple. (See  these  claims  as  taught  by  Palmer,  vol. 
II.,  part  6.)  These  are  astonishing  powers,  as 
every  reader  can  see,  and  no  wonder  that  they 
have  a strong  attraction  fol"  certain  classes  of 
minds,  both  among  priests  and  people.  No  won- 
der that  many  of  the  former  are  anxious  to  per- 
suade the  latter  that  they  are  invested  with  a sort  of 
vicegerency  from  Heaven,  which  really  places  the 
Church  and  the  world  pretty  much  at  their  mercy. 
But  upon  this  point  we  shall  have  more  to  say  at 
another  time.  Such  substantially  is  the  claim, 
and  such  the  ground  (viz. : a succession  to  the 
Apostolic  office,)  upon  which  the  claim  is  built. 
“ There  is  not  a Bishop,  priest  or  deacon  among 
us,”  says  Dr.  Hook,  “ who  cannot,  if  he  please, 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


43 


trace  his  own  spiritual  descent  from  St.  Pcfer  or 
St.  Paul.” 

Now,  as  my  opponent  seems  quite  unwilling 
to  give  us  arguments  (perhaps  because  they  are 
not  as  ‘plenty  as  blackberries,’)  I must  resort  to 
other  advocates  of  this  doctrine  of  the  necessity 
of  unbroken  descent  from  the  Apostles,  to  disco- 
ver the  basis  of  this  futile  theory,  out  of  which 
such  absolutely  fearful  consequences  are  made  to 
grow. 

The  theory  is  built  upon  two  assumptions.  1. 
That  modern  Prelates  are  the  descendants  of  the 
Apostles.  2.  That  their  lineage  is  and  must  be 
unbroken,  from  the  days  of  St.  Peter  and  St. 
Paul.  1.  That  modern  Prelates  are  the  succes. 
sors  of  the  Apostles.  What  Scripture  (for  to 
that  lies  the  appeal)  can  be  shown  for  such  an 
assumption?  Especially  is  there  any  Scripture 
so  absolutely  demonstrative  as  to  silence  all  doubt 
upon  a point  which  is  made  by  my  opponent  an 
article  of  faith — an  essential  item  in  the  creed  of 
the  Church  of  Christ  ? an  element,  wanting 
which,  the  Church  is  defunct,  and  cannot  be  re- 
stored  without  a miracle  ? 

The  reader  will  smile  at  the  magnificence  of 
the  edifice  as  contrasted  with  the  narrowness  of 
the  foundation.  A volume  might  be  written  in 
exposure  of  this  claim,  but  I must  be  content 
with  a few  condensed  paragraphs. 

Christ  ordained  the  Apostles,  as  chief  minis- 
ters— Prelates  are  the  only  chief  ministers  of  Christ 
in  succeeding  times — ergo,  Prelates  are  the  direct 
descendants  of  the  Apostles.  This  is  the  reason- 
ing. To  make  it  good,  it  must  be  shown  that 
Prelates  have  inherited  the  character  and 
power  with  which  the  Apostles  were  expressly 
invested;  that  their  relations  to  the  Curch  are 
the  same.  Let  us  test  the  matter  by  a question 
or  two.  (1)  The  Apostles  were  the  inspired 
teachers  of  the  world  ; but  what  evidence  of  in- 
spiration  (short  of  loud  claims  of  infallibility  or 
‘ indefectibility  ’) — do  the  Prelates  of  Rome,  Eng- 
land or  America  give  ? Again  : (2)  The  Apos- 
tles were  empowered  to  communicate  miraculous 
gifts,  (see  Mark  XVI.  17, 18)  gifts  of  healing,  the 
power  of  speaking  with  unknown  tongues,  &c. ; 
but  what  Prelate  (with  the  exception  of  a few 
highly-favored  individuals  in  the  Papal  body,  who 
have  appealed  to  “ lying  wonders  ” wrought  by 
them)  can  tell  of  a disease  cured,  sight  restored, 
a fractured  limb  healed,  or  a discourse  in  an  un- 
known tongue  delivered  by  any  of  those  upon 
whom  they  have  laid  their  hands.  Again ; (3) 
The  Apostles  wrought  miracles  themselves  ; they 
could  drink  any  deadly  thing  without  harm,  &c. 
&c. ; but  what  Prelate  would  be  hardy  enough 
to  try  the  experiment  upon  himself,  of  taking  a 
dose  of  poison?  Prussic  acid  would  be,  I doubt 
not,  as  fatal  to  Dr.  Doane  as  to  Dr.  Wainwright. 
Again  : (4)  The  Apostles  were  the  overseers  of  the 
whole  Church,  having  received  plenary  powers  to 
preach,  baptize,  bestow  miraculous  gifts,  ordain, 
and  direct  ordination,  not  for  a limited  district  or 
diocese,  but  for  the  known  world ; but  what  mod- 
ern Prelate  has  ventured  to  claim  such  an  exten- 
sive jurisdiction,  if  we  except  the  Prelates  of  Rome, 
who  alone,  in  this  particular,  claim  their  full 
inheritance  of  the  Apostolic  character  ? Again, 
(5)  the  Apostles  were  especially  set  apart  as  liv- 
ing witnesses  of  the  resurrection  ; they  were  par- 


ticularly characterized  by  the  fact  that  they  had 
seen  the  Lord.  This  can  be  shown,  by  a dozen 
references  to  Scripture,  to  have  been  one  of  the 
marked  peculiarities  and  duties  of  their  office. 
But  what  modern  Prelate  can  in  this,  any  more 
than  in  miraculous  endowments,  establish  his 
-claim  to  “ the  signs  of  an  Apostle  ?” 

These  common  sense  contrasts  establish  the  ab- 
surdity  of  resting  the  claims  of  any  ministry 
whatever  upon  the  assertion  of  its  inheritance  of 
the  Apostolic  authority.  The  apostles  had^  no 
successors,  except  as  they  were  Christian  men, 
and  ministers  of  the  word.  They  organized 
Churches  of  Christ  wherever  they  went ; they 
established  a ministry  ; and  whether  that  minis- 
try  consisted  of  three  orders  or  only  one,  (which 
is  a distinct  question,)  it  was  assuredly  not  the 
depository  of  Apostolic  powers. 

But  this  is  not  all : before  we  consent  to  ac- 
knowledge our  modern  Prelates,  or  presbyters,  as 
the  lineal  descendants  of  these  legates  of  Heaven, 
we  must  have  some  explicit  Scripture  to  prove 
their  claim.  I say  again,  explicit,  for  nothing 
but  proof  positive  can  justify  such  a claim.  If  it 
be  not  an  undoubted  claim,  it  deserves  no  better 
name  than  absurd  arrogance. 

And  what  Scriptures,  reader,  do  you  suppose 
are  referred  to  by  our  Apostolical  successionists  ? 
These  are  the  best  they  have — “ Lo,  I am  with 
you  always,  even,  unto  the  end  of  the  world.^' 
Answer — Does  Christ  then  restrict  this  promise 
to  the  Apostles,  and  prelates  their  successors  ? Is 
he  pledged  to  be  with  no  other  ? Are  other 
Christian  teachers  t®  have  no  share  in  the  pro- 
mise ? Again  “ as  my  father  hath  sent  me,  even 
so  send  I you.^^  Answer — Does  this  sending  im- 
ply the  necessity  of  a lineal  succession  ? And  has 
he  sent  none  but  Prelates  ? And  are  Prelates  sent 
in  the  same  sense  as  Christ  sent  the  Apostles  ? 
Again,  “ I appoint  unto  you  a kingdom  as  my 
F ather  hath  appointed  unto  me.”  A nswer — Such 
a place  and  authority  in  the  kingdom  of  Heaven, 
the  Church,  was  bestowed  upon  the  Apostles 
alone,  as  the  inspired  and  miraculously  endowed 
lawgivers  of  his  Church,  in  which  respect  alone 
could  they  be  said  to  be  placed  “ upon  thrones, 
judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.” 

Now,  I ask,  does  it  not  require  all  the  gravity 
which  a grave  subject  demands  to  prevent  one’s 
lifting  the  lash  of  ridicule  against  such  preten- 
sions, supported  by  such  appeals  to  the  word  of 
God? 

Finally,  upon  this  point,  let  us  remark  that  the 
paucity  of  Scriptural  arguments  is  fully  admitted 
by  the  staunchest  advocates  of  this  mysterious 
Apostolical  succession,  I will  let  some  of  these 
gentlemen  give  us  a specimen  or  two  of  their 
views  of  the  Scriptural  argument  for  the  doctrine 
“ no  Church  without  Prelates,”. or  as  it  ought  to 
read,  “ without  Apostles.” 

Thus  Mr.  Keble  (on  Tradition,  p.  96)  says, 
“ The  succession  itself  is — “ A mystery,  and  of 
course  left,  as  all  mysteries  are,  in  some  respects 
dimly  revealed,  i.  e.  in  the  world’s  language,  vague 
and  “ indistinct.”  He  argues  that  tradition  alone 
can  prove  the  doctrine. 

In  Tract  No.  86,  the  writer  says  of  these  doc- 
trines, “ if  the  Episcopal  and  priestly  succession 
have  in  them  something  divine,  as  channels  which 
convey,  as  it  were,  his  presence  to  us — we  must 


44 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


expect  to  find  in  them  something  that  hideth  it- 
self— surrounded  with  difficulties  to  the  carnal 
mind,  withdrawing  itself,  &c.” 

In  Tract  No.  8,  the  writer  says,  “ there  is  no 
part  of  the  ecclesiastical  system  which  is  not 
faintly  traced  in  Scripture,  and  no  part  which  is 
much  more  than  faintly  traced.^’ 

By  another  of  these  writers,  “it  is  granted 
that  the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy,  the  Apostoli- 
cal succession,  the  power  of  the  Church,  &c.  are 
wantmg  in  direct  or  satisfactory  proof,  and  are  to 
be  established,  if  at  all,  only  by  the  aid  of  very 
attenuated  and  nicely  managed  inferential  argu- 
ments.” “ Every  one  must  allow  that  there  is 
next  to  nothing  on  the  surface  of  Scripture  about 
them,  and  very  little,  even  under  the  surface,  of 
a satisfactory  character,”  &,c. 

P I need  quote  no  more.  Let  it  be  remarked 
that  these  are  admissions  made  by  men  who  rely 
mainly  upon  tradition,  but  who  would  gladly  have 
seized  upon  Scripture  arguments,  if  they  could 
have  come  at  them. 

What,  then,  shall  we  say  to  a dogma  whose 
buttresses  are  so  rotten  ? What  is  the  worth  of 
a pedigree,  the  proofs  of  which  are  so  “ atten- 
uated?”  Who  can  fail  to  admire  the  infinite 
self-complacency  with  which  its  claimants  are  so 
full  that  they  fear  not  to  walk  abroad,  even  in 
daylight,  Apostolically  linked  arm  in  arm,  and 
crowding  men  as  good  as  themselves  off  the  foot- 
path into  the  kennel  ? 

In  my  next,  I shall  consider  the  assumption 
upon  which  the  dogma  of  unbroken  succession 
rests — after  which  I will  proceed  to  farther  scrip- 
tural objections  to  the  unchurching  monopoly. 

February  8,  1844.  GEORGE  FOTTS. 


LETTER  XIX. 

REV.  DR.  WAINWRIGHT  TO  REV.  DR.  POTTS. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir — You  have  unceremonious- 
ly sounded  a retreat  from  the  field  to  which  you 
as  unceremoniously  challenged  me,  but  I cannot 
permit  you  to  escape  without  a word  or  two  at 
parting. 

With  what  good  reason  you  first  gave  and 
then  persisted  in  the  challenge,  with  what  tem- 
per you  have  thus  far  carried  on  the  controversy, 
and  with  what  courtesy  you  now  retire  from  it,  I 
leave  others  to  judge.  As  I will  not  presume, 
myself,  to  decide  upon  the  propriety  of  the  step 
you  have  now  taken,  as  between  gentlemen,  to 
say  nothing  of  its  aspect  as  between  ministers 
of  the  Gospel,  so  neither  do  I feel  disposed  to 
question  its  prudence. 

After  having  made  a bold  affirmation,  and  in 
the  progress  of  eight  letters,  of  no  very  moderate 
length,  advanced  one  solitary  argument  in  its 
support,  upon  being  called  upon  to  substantiate 
that  argument  when  invalidated,  or  to  bring  for- 
ward a second,  not  feeling  disposed  or  prepared 
to  pursue  either  course,  it  was  perhaps  wise  in 
you  to  throw  up  the  discussion  altogether. 

You  say  that  you  do  not  make  “ any  preten- 
sions to  logic.”  I do  not  know  that  any  man  is 
under  a moral  obligation  to  understand  the 
art  of  reasoning,  or  to  be  versed  in  the  com- 
mon and  well  defined  rules  of  debate.  But 
perhaps  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  suggest  that,  in 
such  an  instance,  it  would  be  expedient  for  the 


individual,  whosoever  he  might  be,  not  to  thrust 
himself  into  positions  where  the  observance  of 
these  rules  is  fairly  imposed  upon  him. 

The  assertion  you  have  made,  that  you  have 
“ answered  all  manner  of  questions,”  is,  I think, 
somewhat  venturesome.  I do  not  remember  to 
have  asked  more  than  one  question  touching 
closely  the  point  in  dispute,  but  that  is  a vital 
one,  for  the  categorical , answer  to  it  involves  a 
principle  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  whole 
debate.  It  has  not  been  answered  plainly  and 
manfully,  and  your  abrupt  termination  of  this 
discussion  sustains  me  in  the  belief  I expressed 
in  my  last  letter,  that  you  dare  not  answer  it  in  a 
straight-forward  manner,  yes  or  no. 

Not  being  able  or  willing  to  answer  it,  and  not 
having  the  frankness  to  say  so,  and  to  leave  it, 
and  proceed  with  a second  argument,  I do  not  see 
what  course  was  left  for  you  to  pursue  other  than 
the  one  you  have  adopted.  Having  now  with- 
drawn from  the  attitude  of  a disputant,  you  have 
of  course  relieved  yourself  from  the  responsibili- 
ties  of  one ; and  you  can  henceforth  manage 
your  arguments,  assertions  and  analogies  as  you 
please,  and  thus  save  yourself  the  trouble  of  de- 
fending hasty  and  unfortunate  premises  and  illo- 
gical inferences.  I also  shall  find  my  advantage 
in  the  arrangement,  for  I can  now  go  forward  and 
vindicate  my  doctrine  without  the  annoyance  of 
repeated  and  unsuccessful  attempts  to  bring  my 
adversary  to  the  point  and  keep  him  there. 

When  I express  to  you  my  disappointment  in 
not  having  found  in  you  such  an  adversary  as  I 
flattered  myself  I was  to  be  honored  with,  upon 
accepting  your  challenge  to  a discussion,  I would 
not  have  you  or  our  readers  imaginne  that  there 
is  any  regret  mingled  with  this  feeling,  at  the 
question  itself  having  been  brought  into  such 
prominent  notice.  On  the  contrary,  I rejoice 
much  at  the  deep  interest  that  has  been  excited  in 
relation  to  it,  and  at  the  prospect  there  is  of  its 
now  obtaining  a thorough  investigation  by  some 
means  or  other.  It  can  still  be  fully  and  fairly 
examined  without  a formal  disputation,  and  I am 
confident  the  result  will  be  that  mueh  ignorance 
and  prejudice  in  regard  to  the  opinions  held  by 
Churchmen  will  be  thereby  removed. 

To  be  sure,  a public  discussion,  conducted  in 
an  honorable  and  dignified  manner,  with  a mu- 
1 tual  avoidance  of  uncourteous  and  unkind  ex- 
pressions, and  appeals  to  mere  popular  prejudice, 
would  have  produced  no  unpleasant  excitement, 

' and  would  have  added  no  little  interest  to  the 
I whole  investigation.  As  it  is,  however,  (let  the 
I blame  rest  where  it  may)  it  has  been  clearly 
I proved  that  we  had  better  each  proceed  after  his 
. own  method,  to  establish  our  respective  doctrines, 
I and  then  leave  the  public  to  judge  of  ihe  com- 
I parative  weight  of  our  arguments. 

I I was  very  unwilling  to  commence  this  discus- 
I sion,  as  is  well  known,  and  I cannot  say  that  I 
I'  regret  being  relieved  from  the  necessity  of  follow- 
ing it  up  with  an  adversary,  in  debating  with 
whom  I had  begun  to  feel  that  neither  the  cause 
of  truth  nor  that  of  charity  could  be  much  ad- 
vanced ; but  I should  be  far  more  unwilling  to 
leave  the  question  in  its  present  unsatisfactory 
position.  And  therefore  I shall  not  consent  to 
do  so. 

You  indeed  have  deserted  the  arena ; but  as 


A Church  without  a Bishop. 


45 


trust  that  I should  not  have  exulted  over  a pros- 
trate foe,  had  it  been  my  fortune  to  vanquish  you 
in  a fair-fought  field,  I feel  no  disposition  to  tri- 
umph  in  your  precipitate  retreat,  and,  therefore  I 
shall  say  no  more,  but  proceed  as  I best  can  with- 
out you. 

With  my  parting  salutation  to  you  as  you  go, 
however,  suffer  me  to  unite  a word  of  friendly 
caution.  You  have  tried  your  powers  in  contro- 
versy,  and  are  now  about  to  change  this  mode  of 
discussion  for  one  which,  I doubt  not,  will  occa- 
sion you  less  perplexity  and  discomfort.  I trust 
that  the  altered  character  of  your  communications 
to  the  public  will  enable  you,  in  your  preparations, 
to  reflect  more  seriously  than  I fear  you  have 
heretofore  done,  in  the  excitement  of  debate,  upon 
thesacrednessof  the  question  under  consideration. 

When  one  has  a present  adversary  to  contend 
with,  it  is  not  perhaps  in  human  nature  always  to 
distinguish  between  zeal  for  the  truth  and  ambi- 
tion  for  conquest,  and  therefore  it  has  often  hap- 
pened, unfortunately  for  the  reputation  of  our 
common  Christianity,  that  religious  controversy 
has  befen  marked  by  a levity  of  manner,  and  a 
contumelious  use  of  language,  which  have  been 
in  reality  aimed  not  so  much  at  the  subject  in  dis- 
pute as  at  the  person  of  the  disputant.  Now, 
however,  that  you  have  withdrawn  yourself  from 
the  influence  of  this  temptation,  I trust  that  the 
Church  of  which  I am  an  humble  member,  and 
the  doctrine  which,  as  I believe,  sustains  her  dis- 
tinctive character,  will  be  regarded  by  you  as  in- 
vested with  some  degree  of  sacredness,  and  there- 
fore that  you  will  not  allow  yourself  to  assail 
them  any  more  with  opprobrious  epithets  or  ex- 
pressions of  ridicule. 

Remember  that  your  own  Church  and  the  doc- 
trines which  command  your  firm  belief  are  ex- 
posed to  the  same  description  of  unworthy  attack 
from  the  ranks  of  infidelity.  In  the  estimation 
of  the  unbeliever  you  are  as  “ arrogant,”  as  “ ex- 
clusive,” as“  uncharitable”  toward  him,  as  you 
can  possibly  suppose  Churchmen  to  be  toward 
you.  But  does  this  justly  subject  you  to  such 
denunciations  ? Certainlj^  not.  And  wherefore  ? 
Because  you  conscientiously  believe  that  the  doc- 
trines you  hold  are  the  revealed  truths  of  God — 
you  cannot  alter  their  exclusive  character,  and  if 
you  hold  them  in  the  spirit  of  love,  you  do  not  \ 


feel  that  you  are  obnoxious  to  the  charge  of  want 
of  charit}'. 

Why,  then,  not  mete  out  to  us  the  same  mea- 
sure of  forbearance  that  you  yourself  feel  entitled 
to  from  others  ? I believe  the  doctrine  I hold,  in 
relation  to  the  essential  constitution  of  the  Church, 
to  be  as  surely  founded  on  the  Word  of  God,  as 
we  both  do  the  doctrine  of  human  depravity,  or 
the  atonement,  or  the  Trinity,  and  to  be  as  fairly 
deduced  from  this  Word.  I do  not  hold  it,  as  you 
assert,  to  be  a question  of  form,  but  one  of  suh. 
stance.  Now  this  may  be  the  error  of  those  who 
are  called  High  Churchmen.  Convict  them  of 
error,  if  you  can,  from  the  ultimate  authority  we 
both  appeal  to.  But  in  doing  so  pray  remember 
that  they  have  as  deep  an  interest  in  discovering 
God’s  truth  as  yourself,  that  they  have  perhaps 
sought  for  it  as  diligently,  and  that  they  hold  what 
they  have  obtained  as  conscientiously. 

While  then  you  bend  your  efforts  to  instruct  the 
ignorance  or  remove  the  prejudice  of  the  body 
whom  you  designate  as  a “ comparatively  con- 
tracted denomination,”  but  whose  insignificance 
has  nevertheless  not  shielded  them  from  your  as. 
sault,  reflect  that  you  are  dealing  with  doctrines 
as  sacred  in  their  estimation  and  as  dear  to  their 
affections  as  any  Gospel  truth  can  be  to  you. 

In  conclusion,  suffer  me  to  direct  your  atten- 
tion to  a sentiment  of  Richard  Baxter,  who,  in 
the  earlier  part  of  his  ministry,  was  as  bitter  in 
his  hatred  and  as  violent  in  his  denunciations  of 
Episcopacy  as  many  of  those  in  the  present  day 
with  whom  he  is  held  in  high  estimation,  but 
who,  when  age  had  made  him  wiser,  and  expqri- 
ence  had  enlarged  the  bounds  of  his  charity,  ut- 
tered and  left  on  record  the  following  memorable 
words  ; — 

“ At  first  it  would  disgrace  any  doctrine 

WITH  ME  IF  I DID  BUT  HEAR  IT  CALLED  PoPERY 

AND  Anti-Christian  ; but  I have  long  learned 
to  be  more  impartlal,  and  to  know  that  Satan 
CAN  USE  even  the  NAMES  OF  PoPERY  AND  AnTI- 
ChRIST,  to  bring  truth  into  suspicion  AND  DIS- 
CREDIT.” 


I bid  you  now  a final  farewell,  and  am,  with 
all  due  respect. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

^ ^ JON  A.  M.  WAINWRIGHT. 

Saturday,  Feb.  10, 181,4. 


GREELEY  & McELRATH’S  PUBLICATIONS. 


WII^G  PUBtlCATIOiVS. 


The  attention  of  Whig  Associations,  Clay 
Clubs  and  others  interested  in  the  dissemination 
and  promotion  of  Whig  Doctrines  and  Senti- 
ments, is  respectfully  called  to  the  following  Cat- 
alogue of  Works  published  at  the  office  of  The 
New-York  Tribune  by  the  undersigned  : 

Tile  New-York  Daily  Tribune 

Is  published  every  morning  (Sundays  excentfd)  at  The 
Tribune  Buildings,  160  Nassau  street,  on  a laige  and  (air 
royal  sheet,  and  tuiuished  by  Mail  at  the  low  price  of  Five 
Dollars  per  annum,  pa\  able  inflexibly  in  advance.  Aithough 
strialler  than  the  'i'en  Dollar  D-iilies,  its  range  of  topics  is  as 
wide,  and  its  amount  of  reading  matter  not  less  than  ihe  aver- 
ajeof  theirs. 

The  e periment  of  issuing  a cheap  cash  pirer,  elevated  in 
character  and  diguified  ni  tone,  devoted  to  the  true  pj  inniples  of 
the  Government,  and  sustaining  the  gr'=>at  i'rotluciiig  Interests 
of  the  Country,  was  commerced  on  the  )Oth  of  April,  ISil, 
and  in  less  than  a year  atvi  a half  after  its  comm  ncement  the 
daily  circulation  of  THE  INEV\-YORK  TRIBUNE  •»  as 
nearly  or  quite  111, 000  copies,  reaching  every  quarter  of  the  Un- 
ion, while  Its  subicripti'ui  list  at  the  present  lime  is  constantly 
and  rapidly  increasing. 

The  Editorial  conduct  of  this  paper  rests  with  Horace 
Greelev.  abl  y assisted  in  the  Depaitments  of  Literary,  Com- 
mercial and  Miscellaneous  Intelligence,  by  the  aid  of  stated 
correspondents  at  Washington  ami  tlv  most  important  points 
throughout,  t'ne  Union,  as  well  as  private  advices  from  (iiends 
possessing  superior  facilities  for  impelling  information,  the 
Publishers  hope  to  render  their  paper  the  thannei  of  iheearli.-st 
and  most  authentic  accounts  of  all  iinponant  Politic  1 Move- 
ments in  progress  or  ill  cont>=mpluion,  Federal  and  State  Le- 
gislation, wiih  full  and  accurate  returns  of  all  transpiring 
Elections.  The  earliest  accounts  of  Crops,  Business,  Piices, 
Sic,  with  ilieevents  of  the  day,  wi  I also  be  thus  given;  while 
the  Commercial  Deprrtmenl  of  The 'Pribuiie  i.s  the  sjiecial 
charge  o*’ an  Assistant  of  ability  am]  experience,  who  will  give 
fresh,  full  and  a -curate  reports  of  all  doings  in  Produce, 
Goods,  Stocks,  Exchange,  &c,  &c,  not  only  in  this  City,  but 
at  important  points  throughout  the  Union. 

An  Even  ng  Edition  is  published  every  afternoon  in 
time  for  the  Mails,  -wliich  contains  the  News  received  by  the 
morning  mails  and  a summary  of  the  Markets  and  Stock  Sales 
up  to  2 o’clock  c.  M. 

Please  address  GREELEY  & McELRATH, 

Publishe  s.  Tribune  buildings,  NewYork. 


The  New-York  Weekly  Tribune 

Is  made  up  mainly  by  tlie  Editorials,  Nv.ws,  other  than  mat- 
ters ofm  rely  Ciiy  interest,  Literature,  Statistics,  Miscel- 
lanies, &c.  Sic.,  wh  ch  appear  throughout  the  week  in  the 
Daily  TRinttWE.  It  will  contain  some  Literary  matter,  ori 
ginal  and  selecte  1,  which  does  not  appear  in  the  Daily  with  a 
Weekly  Rev  ew  of  the  Markets  In  its  Political  ana  General 
Intelligence,  its'iall  be  our  end  avor  to  render  itequaltoanv 
other  Weekly. ..  .Tee  character  of  the  Tribune  is  by  this 
time  generally  known.  It ' ims  to  reconcile  tin  largest  F/es- 
dom  of  Tnought  and  Action  with  a profound  reve  eiice  for 
Raw  and  ob  aience  to  rightful  Authority— to  be  the  stern  foe 
of  all  discord,  auarchv  and  turbulence,  but  the  champion  of 
every  gene  0U3  idea,  however  novel  or  uniiooular,  w hich  has 
for  its  end  the  uprising  of  tlie  oppress  dan  I the  lowly.  While 
it  proffers  no  claim  to  the  abused  name  of  Democracy,  so  long 
the  cloak  of  political  Piiarisees,  the  cant  of  designing  dema- 
gogues, it  will  be.  as  it  has  been,  in  the  legitimate  sense  of  th? 
word,  truly  Deinocra  ic— the  adversary  ol  eveiy  wrong,  the 
exposer  of  hollow  profession  and  scheming  knavery,  and  the 
advocate  of  every  movement  tending  to  the  diffusion  of  true 

Freed^m  and  the  upward  Progress  of  the  Human  Race 

The  Weekly  Tribune  is  published  in  this  cayevery  Saturday 
morning,  but  desiiatched  by  the  Mails  of  rhui-sday  and  Fri- 
day. It  is  of  tiie  largest  size,  folded  in  eight  pages,  so  as  to  he 
about  the.  average  siz?  of  two  commo'n  newsiiapers.  Subscrip- 
tions are  resiiectfuUy  solicited. ..  .In  irs  I’o!  tical  i-ourse.  The 
Tribune  is  ardently,  inflexibly  Whig,  and  advocates,  with 
its  utmost  energies,  the  Pkotection  of  Home  Industry, 
the  restoration  of  a Sound  and  Uniform  Currency,  the 
rigorous  pr.secu'ion  of  Internal  Improv- mi'.nt,  and  the 
election  of  HENRY  CLAY  as  the  next  Presid  ntof  the  Uni- 
ted States  Being  sent  only  for  Cash  in  .advance,  the  Publish- 
ers areenabled  to  afford  it,  iiotwitnstanding  the  great  size  and 
the  cost  ol  its  pu'ilication,  at  the  low  price  of  Two  Dollars 
a year,  or  where  clubs  are  (orrned  Ten  Copies  for  Filteeii  Dol- 
lars. fCT^Posimaste.s  are  amhorized  by  law  to  trrnsmit  mo- 
neys subscriptions  to  newsi>apers,  under  iht-ir  frank,  free 
of  postage  [Xy^  Money  remitted  through  the  mail  will  be  at 
the  risk  of  the  Publishers.  NoUsofall  specie-paying  Banks 
in  any  State  of  the  Union  -will  be  received  at  par. 

GREELEY  & McELRATH,  Publishers. 


The  Whig  Almanac  for  the  year  1844. 

This  valuable  Register  of  Political  events  has  rapidly  pass- 
ed through  Sixteen  editions,  and  the  demand  for  it  still  con- 
tinues. Manv  of  the  articles  contained  in  it  are  of  permanent 
value,  and  all  of  them  will  continue,  to  be  sought  after  and 
read  throughout  the  entire  year  1841.  Country  Merchants 
coming  to  the  City  this  Sirring  viill  affoid  a favorable  oppor- 
tunity to  those  -who  may  v.ish  to  purchase. 

It  contains  the  usual  Calendars  and  Astronomical  calcula. 
tions,  mad  foreveiy  meridian  from  Maine  to  l-ouisiana.  A 
I-istof  the  Government  Executive  officers  of  the  United  States, 
Judges  «f  the  Supreme  Court,  &c.  with  theirjSalarie.s;  a com- 
plete Lisr  of  thr-  Members  of  the  present  United  States  Senate 
and  House  of  Kepresentaiives  arranged  according  to  their  re- 
spective States.  and  the  politics  of  each.,member  designrrted  ; 
History  of  the  'I'ariff;  Past  and  Present  Tariffs;  Comparative 
Statement  of  the  most  impoitant  articles  bearing  specific  du- 
ties. as  imposed  bv  the  acts  of  1816,  1824,  1828,  1832  and  1842; 
The  Present  Tariff  Law  of  the  Ui'ITed  States,  be- 
ing the  entire  law  on  that  subject.  A National  Bank  with 
Extiact<  from  Mr.  McDuffie’s  Report;  Protection  to  Ame- 
rican Industry— Its  Expediency  and  Necessity,  by  the 
Hon.  Charles  Hudson  of  Mass.  This  valuable  and  useful 
Essay  ocucp  es  14  pages.  Its  facts,  illustrations  and  doctrines 
ought  to  be  understood  by*  every  citizen  who  takes  an  interest 
•n  the  cause  of  American  Industry  and  the  pro-perity  of  the 
people  of  the  United  States;  Extracts  from  Mr.  Clay’s  Speech 
on  the  Public  Lands.  'J  hese  extracts  occupy  several  pages, 
and  are  sufficient  to  g’vea  general  view  ofihis  interesting  sub- 
ject. Anecdotes  of  Politics  and  Politicians,  never  before  pub- 
lished. ELECTION  RETURNS,  by  States,  Uongres- 
sional  Districts  and  Counties.  These  Returns  are  the  fullest 
and  most  comiilete  which  have  ever  been  i ubiished.  They  were 
prepared  at  grea'  labor  and  at  considerable  expense  expressly 
for  the  Whig  Almanac.  They  will  be  constantly  referred  to 
during  tne  coming  year,  as  they  show  not  only  the  returns  for 
the  present  year  b t a so  those  of  1840;  Times  of  holding  Elec- 
tions ill  each  of  the  States;  Popular  Vote  for  Mr  Van  Buren 
and  Gen  Harrison  in  1836  and  in  1818;  The  number  ol  Electors 
of  each  State  in  1840  and  tFe  number  to  which  eat'h  Suteis 
entil  ed  in  1841;  Tables  of  the  Popula.ion,  Debts,  Governors 
and  Chief  Justices  of  the  several  States;  A-iiecdotes  of  Mr. 
Clay,  John  Quincy  Adams,  Col.  Johnson,  &c.  &c. 

The  price  of  the  Whig  Almanac  is  the  same  as  last 
year,  notwitlrstanding  it  contains  about  one  quarter  more 
matter.  Single  copies  12^  cents;  $l  per  dozen;  $7  per  lOO. 
Orders  must  be  accompanied  bv  the  cash.  Postmasters 
remitting,  free  of  postage,  $1  for  a dozen  copies,  will  be 
entitled  to  a copy  gratis.  It  contains  sheets,  and  is  sub- 
ject only  to  periodical  postage. 

The,  WHIG  ALMANAC  is  rega’arly  published  every 
year,  and  is  only  subject  to  periodica!  postage. 

GREELEY  & McELRATH,  Publishers; 

Tribune  Buildings,  160  Nassau-street- 

?ke  Life  and  Speeches*  of  Henry  Clay, 

2 volumes  octavo,  1L4  pages,  with  Steel  Portrait  and  Engr'- 
viiigs.  This  edition  comprises— 1.  A MEMOIR  OF  HENRY 
CLAY— Clear  and  glowing,  written  expressly  for  this  work; 
2 THE  SPEECHES  i E MR  CLAY,  from  1810  to  1812  in- 
clusive, carefully  collected  from  various  sourc  'sf«r  this  wsrk, 
compaied  and  corrected,  and  all  lestored  to  the  fir.-t  person- 
many  of  them  having  been  only  reported  in  the  third  person— 
“ Mr.  C-lay  said  ” so  and  so,  and  “ he  urged,”  &c.  instead  of 
giving  his  own  vigorous  and  graceful  diction,  without  inf^r- 
po'ation  or  dilution.  No  collection  of  Mr.  CLAY’S 
SPEECHES  at  all  comparable  widi  this,  in  completeness  or 
coi|ectuess.  has  ever  before  appeared.  Each  Speech  is  prefa- 
ced by  a brief  introductory  pa>agraph  explaining  the  circum- 
stance.s  which  called  it  foith,  and  whenever  it  is  desirable  and 
not  oiheiwise  indicated,  a note  at  the  end  gives  the  fate  of  the 
measure  unuer  discussion. 

[L7=*  Price,  neatly  bound  in  boards,  with  gilt  titles,  $135  per 
copy,  or  $95  for  100  copies.  In  paper  covers,  French  style, 
single  copies  $l  00,  or.$80  per  100  copies. 

The  American  Laborer. 

An  Important  Work  for  Manufacturers,  Mechanics,  Farmers 
and  (“oliticians — The  A.MERICAN  LABORER,  devoted 
to  the  cause  of  Protection  to  Home  ludustvy,  embracing  the 
Arguments.  Reports  aud  Speeches  of  the  ablest  Civilians  of 
the  United  States  in  favor  <>f  the  Policy  of  Protection  to  Amer- 
ican Labor,  with  tlie  Statistics  of  Production  in  the  United 
States,  8tc  &c.  1 vol  octavo.  This  is  a highly  useful  work 
to  all  who  desire  correct  and  accurate  information  in  reference 
to  the  Labor,  Productions  and  Resources  o'  the  United  States. 
It  contains  many  o)  the  ablest  Speeches,  Repoits  and  Disser- 
tations on  Manufacturing  and  Agricultural  subjects  which 
have  ever  been  made  0=*  Every  Clay  i lub  in  the  United 
States  ouaht  to  see  that  one  or  more  copies  is  placed  in  some 
p^ublic  Library  or  Reading  Room  for  the  use  of  the  public. — 
Price  $1  00,  or  $8  per  dozen. 


Greeley  ^ McElrath's  Publications. 


Life  and  Public  Services  of  Henry  Clay, 

Published  in  a neat  Octavo  Pamphlet,  with  an  engraved 
Likeness,  a new  edition  revised  and  improved,  and  brought 
down  to  the  year  1844.  By  tpes  Sargent,  Esq  , of  the  City 
ofNew-York.  This  is  the  best  biography  of  Mr.  Clay  ex- 
tant. Price  )2i  cents,  or  $8  per  100  copies. 

Reasons  for  Preferring  Mr.  Clay 

to  Mr,  Van  Bureu  for  next  President.  By  Hon  William 
C.  Rives,  U.  S.  Senator  from  Virginia. 

Tlie  Tariff  Question  in  Germany. 

This  m.asterly  Essay  was  called  forth  by  a Report  of  Dr, 
Bowring,  a prominent ' Free  Trade’  Member  of  the  British 
Parliament,  on  the  Commercial  Relations  of  Great  Biitain 
with' Germany,  intended  to  induce  the  Germans  to  abandon 
their  Protective  policy,  and  concur  in  a free  interchange  oP- 
their  respective  productions.  'L'he  fallacy  of  its  assumptions 
and  the  delusiveness  of  ifs  calculations,  so  far  as  they  were 
intended  to  shov/  that  it  is  wise  in  a nation  to  suffer  the  de- 
structive paralysis  by  Foreign  rivalry  of  its  Home  Manufac- 
tures, in  the  exiiectalion  of  supplying  itself  more  advanta- 
geously from  abroad,  is  ably  set  forth  in  this  Tract.  Its  prin- 
ciples and  truths  apply  equally  well  to  this  country. 

The  above  named  Letter  ol  Mr.  Rives  and  the  Discu.s-sion 
of  the  German  'I’arilf,  are  both  minted  together  in  a neat 
Pa.mphlet  of  8 pages,  ai,d  sold  at  $l  25  per  100,  or  $10  per  1,000. 
It  is  hoped  that  this  Tract  may  receive  a very  extensive  cir- 
culation. 

Commercial  Intercourse  with  Great  Britain. 

This  is  a Pamphlet  or  Tract  of  8 pages  showing  the  precise 
operation  of  the  present  British  'J'aiilf  on  the  Produce  and 
Manufactures  of  the  United  States  whenever  the  people  of 
this  country  undertake  to  export  to  England.  A knowledge, 
of  the  fact  of  an  average  duty  of  330  per  cent,  on  American 
Products  when  shipped  to  England,  against  an  average  duty 
of  some  30  p^r  cent  on  English  gooi's  imported  into  the  Uni- 
ted States,  will  piobabiy  show  the  fallacy  of  the  anti  Tariff 
party.  Price  $1  25  per  100  or  $10  per  1000  copies. 

The  Junius  Tracts. 

No- 1.  The  Test,  or  Paities  tried  by  their  acts.  No.  2.  The 
Currency.  No.  3.  The  Tariff.  No.  4.  Life  of  Henry  Clay. 
No.  5.  Political  Abolition.  No.  6.  Democracy .. . tC^This 
Series  of  Political  Tracts,  Irom  the  well-known  author  of 
"Cris:is  of  th  Country  f in  1840,  uniform  in  size  and  price,  is 
publisheu  and  for  sale  at  tVie  Tribune  Office,  NewYork,  at  $2 
50  a hundred  coiiies,  or  $20  a thousand.  Orders  from  any  part 
of  the  Union  supplied  with  despatch.  Remittance  by  mail, 
postpaid  or  free,  at  the  risk  of  the  proprietors  and  publishers 
None  sent  out  on  commission.  Orders  must  be  accom- 

panied with  the  c’sh. 

GREELEY  & McELRATH,  Publishers  for  the  Author 

GREELEE  & McELRATH  have  also  for  sale — 

A Defeaice  of  ifie  VVliigs— -By  a Mewber  of  the 
Tweaty-Seveuth  Congress.  Price  25  cents,  or  $46  per  100 
copies. 

'I’lie  Clay  Minstrel : Or  National  Sosgster,  with 
a Sketch  of  a^r.  Clay’s  Life,  &c.  By  John  S.  Litcell  of  Ger- 
mantown, Pa.  Pncs-  25  cents— $16  per  JOO. 

Ordeis  for  any  of  the  above  named  works  must  be  ad- 
dressed to  GREELEY  &.  McELKATH, 

Tribune  Buildings,  New-York. 

Scientific  & Useful  Faitolications. 

BIT  The  following  valuable  works  are  also  pub- 
lished  at  the  Tribune  Office,  and  may  be  obtain- 
ed from  any  of  the  Agents  of  the  Tribune ; or 
at  Cincinnati  from  William  H.  Moore  ^ Co; 
Philadelphia  from  Zeiber  ^ Co. ; and  at  Bos- 
ton from  Redding  Co. 

Elements  of  Natural  Pliilosophy ; 

Embracing  the  general  principles  of  Mechanics,  Hydrostat- 
ics, Hydraulics,  I'neuinatics,  Acoustics,  Optics,  Electricity, 
Gilvanism,  Mignetism,  and  Astronomy.  lHustrsted  by  seve- 
ral hundred  eng ravuigs.  By  Leonard  D G.^lk,  iM.D  , Pro- 
fessor of  Geology  and  Mineralogy  in  hie  Univer.-iity  of  the 
City  of  New-Yo'^k,  and  Lecturer  on  Chemistry  and  Nature! 
Ptiiiosophy . . . The  abjve  work  is  extensively  introduced  in 
the  best  Schools  and  Seminaries  throughout  d fferent  parts  oi' 
the.  United  States,  and  is  coiiddered  the  best  Book  extant  for 
piivate  learners.  Dr.  Gaie  b-ing  himself  apractical  Chemist, 
and  his  professional  duties  as  Lecturer  requiring  liim  to  make 
constant  and  repe..te(l  experiments  iu  all  branch*  s of  Natural 
Philosophy,  w ,s  eminently  qualified  for  the  task  of  editing 
such  a work.  Most  of  the  other  publications  oii  the  popular 
branches  of  I'liilnsophy  and  Chemistry  are  mere  ccm.  ilatioiis 
made  by  book  rri  ikers;  hence  the  frequent  failures  of  .students 
ill  their  attempts  at  experiment:?  while  following  the  diivctioi.s 
co.it.ained  in  ilirs?  works.  No  such  difficulty  will  occur  in 
the  use  of  this  work  of  Dr.  G ile.  Parents  and  teachers  are 
requested  to  examine  the  work.  Price  50  cents. 

O'Coiineirs  Ireland ! 

A Memoir  oa  Ireland,  Native  and  Saxon,  {Second  Edition,) 
by  Daniel  0’(  Ionnell,  M.  P.  with  a likeness  of  the  Autho  r. 
Price  25  cents;  five  copies  for  $1. 


Lectures  on  Geology. 

Doctor  Lyell’s  Lectures  on  Geology,  (Second  Edition.)  It 
contains  an  engraved  Frontispieee,  exhibiting  an  ideal  section 
of  part  of  the  Earth’s  Crust,  with  explanations  It  also  con- 
tains a general  Introduction  to  Geology  not  before  published. 
Xeefnre  I,  embraces  the  following  subjects:  Auvergne,  Lacus- 
tnne  Period,  Volcanic  Period,  Erui  tion  of  Coseguiua,  Mount 
Dor.  Lecture  II,  The  Earth’s  Strata,  Marine  Strata,  Periods, 
Auvi'rgne  District,  Sub-Appenines,  Mount  JEtna  Lecture 
III,  Upheaval  and  Subsidence  of  the  Earth,  Naples,  Temple 
of  Serapis,  Monte  Nuovo.  ieefure  IV,  Coral  Reefs,  Coral 
I.slands.  Lecture  V,  Origin  of  Coal.  Lecture  VI.  Fossil 
Footquints.  Lecture  VII,  Recession  of  the  Falls  of  Niaga- 
ra. Lecture  Vlll,  Boulders  and  Icebergs. 

To  the  above  is  also  added  in  this  edition,  a Sketch  of  the 
Lecture  of  Dr  J.  Augustine  Smith,  delivered  before  the 
Lyceum  of  Natural  History  on  the  9th  of  December  last  on 
the  Different  Races  of  Mtn.  Price  25  cents;  five  copies  for 
1 dollar. 


Useful  Bo©l£S  for  tSie.  People, 


Farnliam’s  Travels. 

No.  i..  .Travels  in  the  Great  Western  Prairies,  the  Anahuac 
and  Rocky  Mountains,  and  Oregon  Territory;  by  Thomas 
J.  FaRnham,  Esq.  Price  25  cents;  five  cojiiesfor  $'.  “ It  is 
really  relit'shiiig  to  rise  from  the  pent-sal  of  such  a valuable 
and  interesting  woik.  There  is  such  a fountain  of  freshness 
and  originality  gushing  through  every  page,  such  a continual 
stream  of  wit  and  anecdote,  tliat  orre  never  oecomes  weary  of 
drinking  from  its  sparkling  fount.”  [Fhila.  paper. 

“ In  these  days  of  Cheap  Literature,  when  every  kind  of 
namby-pamby  trash  is  flooded  weekly  from  the  press,  it  is 
really  refreshing  to  rise  from  the  perusal  of  such  a valuable 
and  interesting  work.  The  writer  appears  to  have  struck  out 
for  liimselt  ail  entirely  new  path,  and  has  so  entertained  and 
interspersed  it  with  the  green  leaves  of  instruction,  and  the  , 
bright  flowers  of  beautiful  imagery  and  stirring  incident,  that^ 
CO  a lover  of  nature  in  its  wildest  and  most  sublime  teaching^, 
presents  attractions  such  as,  in  our  opinion,  verj^  few  worJis 
of  the  kind  possess.  There  is  such  a fountain  of  freshness  «Aid 
originality  gushing  through  every  page,  such  a contiliual 
stream  of  wit  and  anecdote,  that  one  never  becomes  weary  of 
drinking  from  its  sparkling  fount.” 

[Philadelphia  Citizen  Soldier. 


Dr.  Lardner’s  Lectures. 

No.  III. — Laidner’s  complete  Coarse  of  Lectures,  delivered 
at  Niblo’s  Saloon,  in  the  City  of  New-York.  The  subjects 
embraced  in  the  Lectures,  are  : Electricity— The  Sun — Gal- 
vanism—The  Fixed  Stars— Magnetic  Needle — Latitude  and 
Longitude — Bleaching— Tanning— Popular  Fallacies— Light 
— Failing  Stars— Temporary  Stars— Historical  Skeich  of  As- 
tronomy— De\v-;-Scieuce  aided  by  Art — Scientific  Discove- 
ries— Sound— Vibrations  of  the  Retina— Voltaic  Biltery — 
Sieam  Engines  of  England  and  America.  This  edition  of 
Doctor  Lardeer’s  Lectures  is  introduced  by  a Sketch  of  the 
Progress  of  Physical  Science.  Price,  for  the  whole,  includirg 
Lardner’s  Lectures,  25  cents  per  single  copy.  Postmasters 
and  others  will  receive  five  copies  lor  $1. 


Chemistry  and  Philosophy. 

No,  IV. . .Chemistry  of  thefour  Ancient  Elements— FVr«, 
Jiir , Earth  and  Water— Founded  upon  Lectures  delivered 
beiore  Her  Majesty  the  Queen,  bv  Thomas  Griffith,  Lec- 
turer on  Chemistry  at  Sc.  Bartholomew’s  Hospital.  Illustrat- 
ed by  upwards  of  seventy  engravings The  Boqk  of  Philo- 

sophical Experiments,  illustrating  the  principal  facts  and  cu- 
rious phenomena  of  Electricity,  Galvanism,  Magnetism, 
Chemistry,  O^itics, Heat,  &c  witn  Introductory  Observations 
on  each  Science,  and  upwards  of300  Experiments.  By  J,  S. 
Dalton. 

This  Essay  on  the  Chemistry  of  the  Four  Ancient  Elements 
is  chiefly  intended  I'or  those  who  have  not  studied  the  science. 
Abstruse  details  and  theories  are  avoided,  useful  and  interest- 
ing information  supplied,  and  instruction  united  with  enter- 
aiiiment.  Explicit  directions  are  given  respecting  the  per- 
formance of  the  Experiments. 

“A  person  who  Perloiins  an  Experiment  and  thorough!  v 
understands  the  nature  of  it,  will  hardly  ever  forget  tihe  pnii- 
ciple  it  illustrates.  It  has  been  the  object  of  the  writer  to  in- 
troduce only  such  experiments  as  may  be  performed  with  sim- 
ple apparatus,  and  such  as  may  be  easily  and  cheaply  pro- 
cured.’’ Extracts  from  the  Preface. 

The  two  books  above  named  have  met  with  a rapid 
and  extensive  sale  in  England,  and  continue  to  be  very  pop- 
ular and  in  great  dematid,  notwithstanding  each  one  is  sold  at 
about  four  times  the  price  of  the  cost  of  both  works  together 
in  the  edition  piinted  in  the  “ Series  of  Useful  Books  for  the 
People.’’^ 

The  above  works  are  neatly  printed  on  clear  new  type  with 
about  150  eiigravii  gs,  and  together  are  sold  at  the  evceedingly 
low  price  of  25  cents:  five  copies  for  $1. 


Political  Economy. 

No.  V. ..  Ibinciples  of  Political  Fdcoimmy,  or  the  liaws  of 
the  Formation  of  National  Wealth,  developed  hy  m ‘ans  of 
the  Christian  Law  of  Goverairicnt;  being  the  .su  'siance  of  a 
ease  drlivered  to  the  Hand-loom  Weavers’ Comtnission,  by 
William  Atkinson.  With  an  Introduction,  Tieating  of 
ih.  present  state  of  the  Science  of  I’oliticil  Economy,  and  the 
Adaptalio.i  of  its  Triucinltfs  to  the  Condition  of  our  own 
Couuiry,  and  the  upbuilding  of  its  Prosperity,  by  IIOR.scK 
Greeley.  Price  25  cen's:  five  copies  for  $1. 


Greeley  ^ MeElrath^s  Pv 


Ellsworth’s  Report. 

No.  11— TK-  Irnprovements  in  Agriculture,  the  Arts.  &c. 
iu  the  United  States;  being  an  account  of  recent  and  impor- 
tant discoveries  and  imprqvemenis  in  i he  mode  of  building 
Houses,  making  Fences,  raising  Grain,  making  I’ork,  dispo- 
sing of  tiegs,  making  Lard  Oil,  raising  Silk,  with  engravings 
of  improved  Ploughs  and  other  Ag  icultural  Implements,  &.c. 
J3y  Hon.  H L.  P i.lswouth.  Commissioner  of  Patents.  And 
a Treatise  on  Agiicultural  Geology  Priie  25  cents;  five  co- 
pies for  $1.  '‘It  is  one  of  the  most  valuable  and  interesting 
documents  we  have  ever  perused.” 

The  above  valuable  work  contains  a vast  amount  of  the 
most  important  information  to  Farmers  which  has  ever  be- 
fore been  presented  at  so  cheap  a rate.  The  contents  of  the 
work,  in  part,  are  as  follows: 

Tabular  Estimate  of  the  Crops  in  each  State  of  the  Union, 
showing  the  numbers  of  bush.els  raised  in  each  State  of  Wheat, 
Barley,  Oats,  Rye,  Buckwheat.  Corn,  Potatoes,  pounds  of 
Hay,  Flax  and  Hemp,  Tobacco,  Cotton,  Rice,  Silk,  Cocoons, 
Sugar,  gallons  of  Wine,  Stc. 

Remarks  on  the  foregoing,  and  a Review  of  the  Crops  of 
each  of  the  above  named  articles,  with  important  suggestions 

Progress  of- Improvement — Causes  of  Improvement. 

Corn-Stalk  Sugar— Lard  Oil,  &c.  Foreign  Markr.ts. 

Improved  Mode  of  Fencing— Mode  of  constructing  Houses. 

Railroads. 

Future  Surplus— Comparison  of  Exports  and  Imports. 

Markets  at  Home  or  Aoroad. 

Prospect  of  a Foreign  Market. 

Success  of  Competition. 

Corn  Laws  of  England. 

The  work  also  contains  the  following  valuable  Docu- 
ments: 

1.  Letter  from  Hon.  John  Taft^erro  of  Virginia,  to  Mr. 
Ellsworth  on  the  Culture  of  Wheat. 

2.  Letter  from  William  Webb  of  Wilmington,  Del.  and  Ex- 
tended Remarks  by  the  same  gentleman  on  the  Manufacture  of 
Corn  Stalk  Sugar. 

3.  Extract  from  Annales  de  la  Societs  Polytecl  .lique 
Practique,  translated  at  the  Patent  Office  and  highly  confirma- 
tory of  Mr.  Webb’s  Essay. 

i.  .Method  of  crystalizing  Corn  Sirup— Utensils, Process, 
&c.  &c.  By  J.  J.  Mapes,  Eso. 

5.  BROOMCORIS — Method  of  Planting,  Cultivation,  Har- 
vesting, Scraping,  Machinery,  Product,  Value,  Manufacture 
of  Brooms,  Miscellaneous. 

6.  Pot  and  Pearl  Ashes.  By  W.  A.  Otis,  of  Cleaveland 
Ohio. 

7.  do.  do.  By  H.  Work  of  Fort  Wayne. 

8.  LARD  OIL. — Converting  Lard  into  Oil,  and  ako  into 
concrete  forms  for  the  manfacture  of  Candles— Result  of  Ex 
perimeuts.  By  Harris,  Stanwood  & Co.  of  Boston,  With 
Remarks  on  the  same  subject.  By  Campbell  Morfix  of. 
I’liiladelphia. 

9 and  10.  Same  subject  discussed  by  W.  Milford  and  J.  R 
Stafford  of  Cleaveland,  Ohio. 

11.  Mode  of  Manufacturing  Elaine  and  Stearine  from  Lard, 
&c.  By  John  H.  Smith  of  New-York. 

12.  Letter  from  A.  Scott,  Esq.  of  Erie,  Pa.  on  the  uses  and 

value  of  Rape  Seed.  , . 

13.  Mode  of  Fencing  and  Ditching,  &c.,  with  cuts  or  dia- 
grams representing— 1.  The  Fence;  2.  B.aiLs  sharpened;  3.  Au- 
gur with  Cutters;  4.  Holes  bored;  5.  Post,  Ditch  and  Embank- 
ment; G and  7.  Views  of  the  Scraper;  8 and  9.  Views  of  tlie 
Plough:  10.  Surface  of  the  ground;  IJ.  Cheap  Wood  Mill; 
12  and  13.  End  and  Front  views;  14.  Post-bonng  Machine. 

14.  Letter  from  H.  W.  Ellsworth  of  Lafayette,  Indiana,  on 
the  same  subject. 

15.  Plan  of  Cheap  Cottages. 

16  and  17.  Duties  on  Imports  into  the  Port  of  St.  John’s,  L 
C.,  from  the  United  States. 

18.  On  the  subject  of  Exporting  Beef,  Pork,  Hams,  Lard, 
Cheese,  &c.  from  the  United  States  to  England,  and  the  proper 
mode  of  preparing  the  same. 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing,  which  w'as  prepared  by 
the  Hon.  H.  L.  Ellsworth,  and  presented  to  Congress  at  its 
last  Session,  and  ten  thousand  copies  ordered  to  be  printed, 
the  Publishers  have  connected  with  it  a valuable  Treatise  on 
Raising  Swine,  and  the  best  Methods  of  Fattening  Pork;  by 
Henry  Colman  of  Mass.  . 

And  to  render  the  work  still  more  worthy  the  attention  of 
Farmers,  they  have  also  added  an  invaluable  Treatise  on 
^Geology  as  Connected  with  Agriculture,  by  Willis  Gay- 
lord, of  Onondaga  Co.,  N.  Y.  This  Treatise  alone  is  consi- 
dered by  many  practical  farmers  as  worth  twice  the  cost  of  the 
whole  work. 

History  of  tlie  Silk  Culture ; 

No.  ■vi...The  Silk  Culture  in  the  United  States:  Em- 
bracing complite  accourifs  of  the  latest  and  most  approved 
modes  of  Hatching.  Reaiing  and  Feeding  the  Silkworm, 
Managing  a Cocoonery,  Reeling,  Siiiniiiiig  and  Manufactur- 
ing the  Silk,  &c  &c.;  with  very  interesting  History  Sketches 
of  the  Silk  Business,  Na’ura!  History  of  the  Silkworm,  the 
Mulberry,  fkc.  Mastrated  by  iiumeious  engravings  of  Ma- 
chinery and  Processes,  and  a Manual  of  the  Silk  Culture.— 
Price  25  cents;  five  copi-s  for  $1. 

TUe  Weekly  Tribune  has  now  the  largest 
circulation  of  any  paper  printed  in  the  City  of  New-York. 
A few  advertisements  will  be  insetted  if  handed  in  on  or  before 
Tuesday  of  each  week.  Price  fifty  cents  for  a square  of 
eight  lines.— Terms  cash. 


3 0112  058794774 

urvAUXCUit  aA.lXU«illU,VS  I 


A large  supply  of  German  Almanacs  (or  sale  at  the  office  of 
the  New  York  Tribune.  Price  37i  cents  per  dozen. 

This  Almanac  is  printed  in  the  Getinaa  language,  in  the 
usual  style  and  s ze  of  German  AImvnao,  and  contains,  in 
addition  to  the  usual  variety  ©f  reading  matter,  articles  of 
great  interest  to  Germans  connected  with  ihe  Industry  and 
Labor  of  the  country,  and  on  the  importance  of  Protection 
to  the  Mechanics  and  Workingmen  of  the  United  States 
against  English  competition 


OUR  PUBLICATIONS  — AGENTS  — CASH  ^ 
BUSINESS. 

Our  friends  in  different  parts  the  Urited  States  who  sea 
proper  to  endorse  the  responsibility  of  individuals  and  recem- 
mend  them  as  worthy  of  credit,  are  hereby  informed  that,  our 
rerms  being  invariably  eaih  in  advance,  we  never  inquire 
into  the  pecuniary  respoiisibiiii y oi'  our  cusioniers.  1 he  bet- 
ter wav,  perhai  s,  where  an  individual  is  anxious  to  engage  in 
the  circulation  of  our  valuable  and  popular  iintdications, 
won'd  be  for  his  friends  at  home  to  loan  him  a sufficient  sum 
of  money  to  make  his  first  purchases.  Tli  s may  avail  him 
somethiiu- ; luit  letters  of  introduction  and  ttrsiimoiiialsof  good 
character,  iiowever  much  they  may  command  our  respect, 
cannot  be  made  to  answer  in  the  place  of  Cash.  [Cr“  We 
send  out  no  boo  rs  on  commission. 

GREELEY  & Mct:LRATH,  Tribune  Buildings, 
opi/osite  City  Hail. 


ICS“  Postmasters  are  authorized  by  law  to  transmit  moneys  for 
subscriptions  to  newspapers,  under  their  frank,  free  of  postage. 

Money  remitted  through  the  mail  will  be  at  the  risk  of  the 
Publisliers.  Notes  of  all  specie-paying  Banks  in  any  State  of  tlie 
Union  will  be  received  at  par.  G.  & M. 


Curiosities  of  Literature, 

AND  THE  LITERARY  CHAR4GTFR  ILLUSTRA- 
TED. Byl  D’lSRAELLEsq.D.C.  L.,F.  S.A.  First 
and  Second  Series 

THE  LITERARY  CHARACTER.  Illustrated  by  the 
Historv  »f  Men  of  Genius — Drawn  from  their  ovrn  Feel- 
ings and  Confessions.  Bv  1.  D’ISKAELI,  Ksq. 
CURIOSITIKS  OF  AMERICAN  MTciRATURE- 
Compiled.  Etlifed  and  Arranged  by  Rev.  RUFUS  W. 
GRISWOLD. 

“ The  design  of  this  work  is  to  stimulate  the  literary  cuiios- 
ity  of  those  who,  with  a taste  for  its  tranquil  pursuits,  are  im- 
peded in  their  acquirements.  _ The  characters,  ihe  events,  and 
the  singularities  of  modern  literature,  are  not  always  familiar 
even  to  those  who  excel  in  classical  studies.  But  a more  nu- 
merous part  of  mankind,  by  their  occupations,  or  their  indo- 
lence, both  unfavorable  causes  to  literary  imjiro vents,  require 
to  obtain  tlie  materials  for  thinking,  by  tliee.^.siestand  readiest 
means.” — \_Extract  from  the  Author’s  Pr^ace  to  the  Firsts 
Series. 

“ These  Researches  offer  authentio  k\o\\  ledge  for  evanes- 
cent topics:  they  attempt  to  demonstrate  some  general  princi- 
ple, by  induction  from  a variety  of  principles — to  develope 
those  imperfect  truths  which  float  obscurely  in  the  mind— and 
to  suggest  subjects,  which,  by  their  siiigulaiity,  are  new  to 
inquiry,  and  which  may  lead  to  new  trains  of  ideas.  In  accus- 
toming ourselves  to  discoveries  of  this  nature,  every  research 
seems  to  yield  the  agreeable  feeling  of  invention — it  is  a pleas- 
ure peculi.-ir  to  itself— something  which  we  ourselves  have 
found  out — and  which,  whenever  it  imparts  novelty  «r  inter- 
est to  another,  communicates  to  him  the  delight  of  the  first 
discoverer.” — Extract  from  the  Preface  to  the  Second  Series. 

“ Nor  do  I presume  to  be  any  thing  more  than  ihe  historian 
of  genius;  whose  humble  office  is  only  to  tell  the  virtues  and 
the  infirmities  of  his  heroes.  It  is  the  fashion  of  the  present 
day  to  raise  up  dazzling  theories  of  genius;  to  reason  a priori; 
to  promulgate  abstract  paradoxes;  to  treat  with  levity  the 
man  of  genius,  because  he  is  only  a man  of  genius.  I have 
sought  I'or  facts,  and  have  often  drawn  results  unsuspected  by 
myself.  I liave  looked  into  literary  history  for  the  literary 
character.”— [£xtract/rom  the  JluthoPs  Pr^ace  to  the  Lit- 
erary Character. 

The  Curiosities  of  American  Literature,  which  will  be 
published  in  connection  with  the  works  above  mentioned,  will 
prove  to  be  among  tlie  most  interesting  collections  of  literary 
anecdote  ever  made.  It  is  the  first  work  of  the  kind  ever  un- 
dertaken in  this  country, though  imr  literature  offers  to  the  dil- 
igent inquirer  a vast  amount  of  the  most  attractive  material.— 
Mr.  Griswold,  who  will  compile  the  work,  has  been  collect- 
ing matter  for  it  for  a great  number  of  yeirs;  and  no  one  this 
side  the  Atlantic  is  better  fitted  for  the  task  than  he.  He  has 
a literary  acquaintance  embracing  almostevery  literary  person 
in  America,  and  a collection  of  American  Literature- stand- 
ard and  periodical — probably  unsurpassed  in  the  United  States. 
This  departmentof  the  work  will  he  of  rare  interest  and  value. 

These  three  works  will  be  published  in  a single  volume,  im- 
perial 8vo. 

The  above  work  will  be  published  some  time  in  the  month 
of  March  or  April,  1844,  by  the  undersigned,  and  will  be  sold 
at  a very  low  price.  No  Library,  pubiic  or  private,  will  be 
cemplete  without  a copy. 

D.  APPLETON  & CO..'200  Broadway. 


